assets-find-built-in

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

No annotations are provided, so the description fully discloses behavior: it searches built-in assets, highlights the location, and explains the lack of GUID support. This is sufficient for a read-only search operation, though it could mention that it only returns built-in assets (which is implied).

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 very concise, consisting of two sentences. The first sentence states the purpose and location, and the second provides a key limitation. Every word contributes value without redundancy.

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 the tool has 3 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description provides essential context: the asset type support, location, and a notable limitation (no GUIDs). It is complete enough for an agent to understand the tool's scope, though a brief note on return format would enhance it further.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage, so the descriptions already define the parameters. The tool description does not add extra meaning beyond the schema. For high schema coverage, a baseline of 3 is appropriate as the description adds no significant new semantics.

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 searches built-in assets of Unity Editor, specifies the exact location (Resources/unity_builtin_extra), and distinguishes from other asset-finding tools by noting it does not support GUIDs. This provides a specific verb-resource combination and sets it apart from siblings like 'assets-find'.

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 implies usage for searching built-in assets but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'assets-find'. It mentions the unsupported GUIDs, which hints at a limitation but does not provide clear when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance.

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