find_unregistered_assets

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. "Find" and "Returns a list" imply a read-only operation, and the return shape is disclosed, but nothing confirms non-mutation, whether the scan is recursive through subdirectories, or whether an empty result vs. missing assets/ directory is possible. Useful but incomplete behavioral picture for a scan tool.

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 short, front-loaded lines: what it finds, what it returns, when to use it. The return-value sentence is somewhat redundant because an output schema exists, but it is brief and sets expectation cheaply.

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 zero-parameter, output-schema-backed read tool, the description covers purpose, scope, and usage. The only meaningful gap is the lack of confirmation that it is read-only and non-recursive vs. recursive, which matters for an asset-scanning sibling set.

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?

Zero parameters, so the baseline of 4 applies. The description correctly adds no parameter discussion and instead spends its words on scope and return shape.

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?

Specific verb and resource with an explicit scope constraint ("files in assets/ that have no registry entry"), and it names save_asset as the downstream tool whose output it differs from. An agent can distinguish this from siblings like scan_directory or lint_vault without opening a schema.

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 states the situation that calls for it ("surface ghost files that were dropped into assets/ without going through save_asset"), which is clear usage context. It does not name alternatives such as scan_directory, resolve_asset, or lint_vault, nor any exclusion, so it stops short of full routing guidance.

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