Validate Spine assets

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It states only 'Check whether' but does not explain if the tool is read-only, how it reports missing assets (error vs. list), what happens if the folder doesn't exist, or any required permissions. The behavioral details are insufficient for an agent to understand side effects or reliability.

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 a single, concise sentence. While efficient, it is too minimal for a tool with multiple parameters and no annotations. It lacks structure such as separating purpose from usage details. It is neither verbose nor well-organized, earning an average score.

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 (1 required), low schema coverage, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is critically incomplete. It fails to explain return values, validation logic, error handling, or prerequisites. An agent cannot reliably invoke this tool based solely on this description.

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 33% (only folderPath has a brief description). The description does not mention any parameters or add meaning beyond the schema. For a 3-parameter tool with low coverage, the description should compensate by explaining the roles of requireAtlas and requireImages, but it does not, severely limiting parameter understanding.

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 checks a folder for Spine runtime assets (verb 'Check' + resource 'folder'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like spine_export or spine_pack, which have different purposes. However, 'expected Spine runtime assets' is somewhat vague, lacking specificity on what exactly constitutes 'expected'.

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 a use case (validate assets in a folder) but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention when not to use it. No exclusions or alternative tool references are given, but the context of validation is clear.

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