audit_asset_library

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral disclosure burden. It lists what is audited, implying a read-only inspection, but does not disclose what an audit produces, whether it can fail, or whether it has any side effects. 'Audit' weakly suggests non-destructive behavior, but the agent is left guessing about the result.

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 sentence with an active verb, a precise list of audited resources, and a useful temporal context ('before composing a scene'). There is no filler or redundant restatement of the tool name.

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 there is no output schema and no annotations, the description should explain what the agent will receive or what a completed audit looks like. It clearly states scope and timing but omits the tool's result format and any error/failure semantics, leaving a meaningful gap for a tool with no structured output metadata.

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 tool has zero parameters and the empty schema fully covers parameter semantics, so there is no additional burden on the description. A baseline of 4 is appropriate; there is no parameter information that could be added.

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 uses a specific verb, 'Audit', and lists concrete resources: library ids, preset references, categories, folders, and navigable asset paths. It is not a tautology and gives a clear sense of what the tool examines. It stops short of a 5 because it does not explicitly distinguish itself from similar-looking siblings like audit_asset_manifest or summarize_asset_library.

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 phrase 'before composing a scene' provides a clear temporal/usage context, telling the agent when this tool is relevant. However, it does not state when not to use it or name alternatives such as audit_asset_manifest, so it misses full routing guidance.

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