mascot_assets

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does add real behavioral detail: the exact output path layout, the {,-blink} naming, namespacing to Image("Mascot/idle"), and fallback-pose borrowing for states lacking a pose. It still omits whether existing assets are overwritten, auth/approval mechanics, or failure behavior.

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?

A single dense sentence front-loads the destination path, with the namespacing and fallback behavior appended as clarifiers. No wasted prose, though the brace/path notation is heavy for one line.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described. What is present (target layout, namespacing, fallback) is useful, but with 3 params at 0% schema coverage, no annotations, and no approval mechanics explained, the definition is only partially complete for a write-to-project tool.

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 0% across 3 parameters, so the description must compensate and does not. 'states' is only indirectly implied via the fallback-pose sentence, while app_dir and source_dir are never explained. The one bit of path syntax given is the only parameter-adjacent meaning.

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?

States a specific verb (import) and a concrete resource and destination (poses + blink variants into Resources/Assets.xcassets/Mascot). The fallback-pose note adds a scope distinction. However it does not clearly differentiate from the sibling mascot_blink, which appears related.

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 explicit when-to-use, prerequisites, or alternatives are given. 'Approved poses' hints at a precondition but never states who/what approves them or when not to run this tool. The agent is left to infer usage.

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