Renforge Assets

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses the detection scope (orphaned AND missing, restricted to image/audio assets), which implies a read-only diagnostic pass. However, it never states that it is non-mutating, what counts as "orphaned," or any performance/auth constraints for scanning a whole project.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler or redundancy. It is efficient, though its brevity edges toward under-specification rather than true completeness.

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?

An output schema exists so return values need not be spelled out, but for a project-wide asset scan with no annotations and an entirely undocumented required parameter, the definition leaves the agent without scoping details, usage context, or behavioral guarantees.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0% and the single parameter project_path is undocumented in both the schema and the description. The description never mentions the path argument, what format it expects, or whether it points to a file or directory, so it fails to compensate for the coverage gap.

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 gives a specific verb ("Find") and a well-defined resource ("orphaned and missing image/audio assets in the project"), which is far more informative than the title "Renforge Assets". It does not, however, distinguish itself from adjacent scanning siblings such as renforge_scan_project or renforge_inspect_project.

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?

There is no indication of when to reach for this tool versus renforge_scan_project, renforge_inspect_project, or renforge_find_references. No prerequisites, no exclusions, no alternative routing is provided.

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