get_texture_info

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must cover behavioral traits. It mentions that the tool returns metadata (dimensions, format, mip levels) but does not disclose side effects, required permissions, or performance characteristics. The read-only nature is implied but not explicitly stated.

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 concise with two sentences and an Args section. It is front-loaded with the main purpose. However, the Args section redundantly restates the schema parameter; a bullet list under a heading adds structure but could be integrated better.

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 presence of an output schema (which defines return structure) and one parameter, the description is minimally complete. It fails to mention error handling (e.g., invalid resource_id) or that the tool requires a previously captured frame. Could be improved with a note on prerequisites.

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 single parameter resource_id has 0% schema description coverage, but the description adds 'The resource ID of the texture', providing basic semantics. However, it does not clarify expected format or constraints (e.g., must be a valid texture ID). This is minimally adequate for a single parameter.

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 'Get metadata about a texture resource' and elaborates with specific properties (dimensions, format, mip levels). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_texture_data, which likely returns pixel data, and get_shader_info for shaders.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., get_texture_data) or any prerequisites (e.g., ensure the texture exists). It solely describes what it does without contextual usage advice.

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