add_asset

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full transparency burden. It discloses two behavioral traits: the operation pushes, and compilation is limited to roots that reference the asset. Still, it does not mention overwrite behavior, permissions, or what 'push' entails, leaving meaningful gaps for a mutation tool.

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, front-loaded with the action, and every sentence adds value. The second sentence provides a useful behavioral nuance without unnecessary elaboration.

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?

Despite having an output schema, the tool has four parameters, no annotations, and no parameter descriptions. The description explains the core action and one safety property, but it omits the meaning of message/project and does not clarify side effects beyond 'push.' This is incomplete for reliable 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 0%, so the description must compensate for the four parameters. It hints that local_path is a local file and that 'push' relates to message, but it never explicitly defines dest, message, or project. This is insufficient for an agent to confidently map inputs.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Copy a local image or binary into the project, then push.' This clearly distinguishes add_asset from siblings like write/edit (text creation) and compile/render (build operations). The additional note about compilation scoping reinforces its unique role.

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 makes the primary use case explicit: adding a local image or binary into the project. It also provides a practical safety guideline: an unreferenced file cannot break a build. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use this tool, 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.