get_asset_files

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 states that the tool 'returns' links and metadata, implying a read-only operation, and clarifies it does not mirror the asset. However, it does not disclose potential side effects, authentication requirements, rate limits, or error handling. The transparency is adequate for a simple retrieval but not comprehensive.

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 (14 words), front-loaded with the verb 'Return' and immediately stating the object. Every word adds value: 'official provider-hosted' specifies source, 'for a selected asset' indicates prerequisite, and 'without mirroring it' clarifies behavior. No redundancy or fluff.

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 5 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is incomplete. It does not explain what 'file metadata' includes, what format/resolution options are available, how limit works, or what the response structure looks like. The high-level description is insufficient for an agent to confidently invoke the tool with correct parameter values and interpret the result.

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 5 parameters (assetId, limit, format, provider, resolution) with 0% schema description coverage. The description mentions 'file metadata' and 'download links' but does not explain the meaning or usage of any parameter. It fails to compensate for the lack of schema descriptions, leaving the agent to infer parameter semantics from names alone. This is a significant 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 clearly states the tool's function: 'Return official provider-hosted download links and file metadata for a selected asset without mirroring it.' It identifies the specific verb (Return), the resource (download links and metadata), and the scope (selected asset), distinguishing it from sibling tools like search_game_assets or list_asset_providers. The additional qualifier 'without mirroring it' adds a semantic boundary that prevents confusion with potential download/copy operations.

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 does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, but it implies a workflow: 'for a selected asset' suggests it follows an asset selection step (likely from a search tool). There is no mention of exclusions or alternatives, so the usage context is implied rather than clearly articulated. This meets the minimum viable standard but lacks explicit guidance.

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