build_fix_imports

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses conditional behavior (script vs .meta edit) and the effect of the 'apply' parameter. However, it lacks details on potential side effects, permissions required, or reversibility of .meta edits.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two sentences convey the core action and dual behavior. It is front-loaded and efficient, but could be structured slightly better (e.g., separate conditional outcomes) without losing brevity.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given no output schema, annotations, or required parameters, the description covers main functionality but omits details like return format of the script, scope when targetFolder is omitted, and any preconditions. It is adequate but has notable gaps.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description adds value by explaining the 'rule' parameter with an example default and the 'apply' parameter's effect. However, 'targetFolder' remains unexplained, and parameter semantics are only partially covered.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool's action ('generate fix'), target resource ('texture imports'), and key behaviors ('returns C# Editor script' and 'edits .meta directly'). It distinguishes from sibling tools which focus on analysis, compliance, or other tasks.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention prerequisites or when not to use it. It assumes the user already knows they need to fix texture imports.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.