decode_assets

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does so well: it declares 'Read-only on game files; decoded files + DB rows are the only writes', spells out exactly which formats are produced vs noted-and-deferred (compressed meshes, FSB5-wrapped Vorbis), and describes the resS-sidecar streaming. This is rich disclosure beyond what a structural field would convey.

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?

Front-loaded with the purpose, then conversion details, then write semantics and parameters. It is information-dense and every clause earns its place, though the arrow-chain syntax is slightly heavy to parse.

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?

No output schema or annotations exist, yet the description covers the input modes, conversion outputs, side effects (decoded files + DB rows), and deferral behavior, and notes the decoded=1/decoded_path DB update. An agent has everything needed to call it correctly.

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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3, but the description adds real meaning: the db_path/game_path either-or relationship and the override behavior of out_dir and asset_kinds. It clarifies the mutual-exclusion semantics that the schema only implies per-parameter.

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 opens with a specific verb+resource ('Asset Decoder') and details exactly what it does: reads a PR-1 autopsy catalog, opens Unity .assets containers, and converts members to standard formats. The per-type conversion list (Texture2D -> PNG, Mesh -> glTF, AudioClip -> WAV/OGG) makes its identity unmistakable against siblings like read_asset and list_assets.

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?

It explains how to invoke it ('Pass either db_path or game_path') and the effect of asset_kinds, but gives no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance and names no alternative tool. The usage context is implied by 'Universal Asset Decoder' rather than stated, so it lands at implied-usage rather than a routing rule.

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