get_asset_preset

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

With no annotations, the description bears the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds that the result is 'ready-to-compose' and includes 'recommended MCP tools,' but it does not clarify whether resolution is a read-only lookup, how outputs are structured, what errors may occur, or any prerequisites.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler or redundancy. It communicates the core output in just ten words, though it could have traded some brevity for more param or usage detail.

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?

The tool is simple in terms of parameter count, but with no output schema and no annotations, the one-sentence description leaves significant gaps: it never defines the id parameter, explains the resolution behavior, or describes the shape of the returned preset and tool recommendations.

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 'id' is not explained anywhere in the description or schema beyond minLength 1. Since schema description coverage is 0%, the description was obligated to clarify what id represents, but it does not.

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 ('Resolve') and names a concrete resource ('a ready-to-compose scene preset and its recommended MCP tools'). It communicates what the tool produces, though it does not explicitly distinguish it from siblings like generate_asset_preset or compose_asset_preset.

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 implies the tool is for retrieving a ready-to-compose preset, but gives no explicit when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no mention of when alternatives such as generate_asset_preset or recommend_asset_scene would be more appropriate.

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