inspect_asset_bundle

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It implies a read operation by saying 'inspect' and 'return', but it does not explicitly state that it has no side effects, nor does it mention any permissions or limitations. It doesn't describe any behavioral quirks or edge cases.

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 sentence that is concise and front-loaded with the primary action. It efficiently states the purpose without fluff. However, it could be slightly expanded to cover parameters without sacrificing conciseness.

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 tool with three parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is incomplete. It does not explain how parameters affect the inspection, what the output looks like, or any constraints. An agent would have to guess at parameter semantics.

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 schema has zero description coverage for its three parameters. The description does not explain the purpose of 'filename', 'max_colors', or 'max_isolated_pixels'. It only mentions 'one asset' but doesn't map to parameters. This is a significant gap.

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 it inspects one asset and returns quality violations and recommendations. It identifies the resource (asset) and the action (inspect), and the outcome. However, it does not distinguish it from sibling tools like inspect_asset_batch or inspect_animation_quality, so it lacks sibling differentiation.

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. It does not mention that it is for a single asset, nor does it recommend other tools for batches or animations. There is no exclusions or context.

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