renforge_assets

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It fails to state whether the operation is read-only, how 'orphaned' or 'missing' is determined, whether it modifies files, or what output to expect. This lack of context leaves the agent uncertain about side effects and analysis semantics.

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?

The description is one short sentence that efficiently communicates the core purpose without filler. It earns its place by being front-loaded and actionable.

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?

While the output schema may define return values, the description is too minimal for effective tool selection. It lacks usage context, parameter details, and behavioral notes, making it incomplete for an agent comparing many sibling tools. For a complex analysis task, more context is needed.

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?

The only parameter, project_path, has no schema description, and the tool description doesn't explain its format, required type, or acceptable values beyond implying it points to the project. The description adds minimal meaning over the parameter name itself.

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 uses a specific verb 'Find' and identifies the resource as 'orphaned and missing image/audio assets in the project.' This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'renforge_find_references' and 'renforge_scan_project' by targeting asset health specifically.

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 choose this tool over alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites, typical scenarios, or exclusions. The use case is only implied by the action itself.

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