Mascot Assets

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

Annotations already declare non-read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world behavior. The description adds value beyond that by naming the write target (Resources/Assets.xcassets/Mascot/) and the fallback-substitution behavior for unposed states, which the schema/annotations do not cover.

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?

Three tight sentences with 'Use when' and 'Returns' labels front-loading the sequencing and output shape. No filler or restated boilerplate.

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 the brief return mention is sufficient, and the description covers ordering, fallback behavior, and destination. It does not say whether pre-existing imagesets are overwritten or what failure looks like when source PNGs are missing.

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 100%, so all three params (app_dir, states, source_dir) are already documented in the schema, making 3 the baseline. The description's mention that unposed states borrow a fallback adds a small semantic nuance about the 'states' param but no syntax or format details.

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 resource (mascot poses/blink variants) with a concrete destination path, so the agent knows exactly what gets written and where. It hints at sequencing with mascot_blink but does not explicitly contrast itself with that sibling.

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 'Use when: after mascot_blink' clause gives a clear ordering precondition relative to a named sibling, and 'states without a pose borrow a fallback' explains downstream consequence. No explicit when-not guidance, though the prerequisite is unusually concrete for this set.

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