Import assets

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'find and fix' and the cause of unimported assets, but it does not explain what reimport actually does, whether it modifies project files, or any side effects. The 'fix' action is vague about consequences, leaving significant behavioral ambiguity.

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 two sentences: the first is an action-oriented summary, and the second adds essential context and a call-to-action. Every sentence earns its place, with no fluff or repetition.

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?

There is no output schema and no annotations, so the description must explain return values and behavior. It does neither for pagination (limit/offset), reimport effects, or what 'check' vs 'reimport' return. While it covers the primary use case, the missing operational details make it incomplete for correct invocation.

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?

Schema description coverage is only 50% (only 'action' and 'project' have descriptions). The tool description does not compensate by explaining 'limit', 'offset', or important parameter interactions. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema already states, which is insufficient for the low coverage.

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+resource ('Find and fix assets') and clearly states the tool's scope (assets Godot has not imported yet). It distinguishes this from sibling tools by mentioning the exact error symptom and the action of importing, making its purpose unambiguous.

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 gives a clear trigger: 'Call this after adding files outside the editor.' It also provides diagnostic context ('No loader found for resource') that helps the agent know when this tool is relevant. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives, so it falls short of a 5.

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