asset_exists

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

No annotations are provided, so the description is the sole source of behavioral info. It implies a non-destructive read operation but does not disclose potential side effects, error handling (e.g., what happens if path is invalid), or behavioral nuances like case sensitivity or asset type handling.

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?

Single sentence, front-loaded with key action and resource. No redundant words. However, could be enhanced with a brief example or note on path format without losing conciseness.

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?

For a simple existence-checking tool with one parameter and output schema likely containing a boolean, the description is minimally adequate. However, it lacks usage context and parameter clarification, leaving gaps that could confuse an agent about exact semantics.

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?

Only one parameter 'asset_path' exists, and schema description coverage is 0%. The description mentions 'object path' but does not clarify format (e.g., absolute vs relative, Content Browser path), valid patterns, or examples. The description adds minimal value beyond the parameter name.

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?

Description clearly states the action ('check'), the resource ('asset'), and the condition ('exists'). It effectively distinguishes from sibling tools like 'asset_info' which would provide details rather than a boolean check.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., when to prefer this over 'asset_info' for checking existence). The description lacks context for usage in different scenarios.

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