storm_asset_infoRetrieve extracted CPK asset details, including file paths, matching entries across games, and NUCC xfbin chunk lists, to inspect or compare Storm-engine game assets.
One extracted CPK file: paths, same entry in other games, and the xfbin chunk list (type, name, path) for NUCC files.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| game | Yes | ||
| path | Yes | ||
| max_chunks | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| ok | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description usefully adds what the payload contains (cross-game entry, chunk list), but says nothing about whether max_chunks truncates results or how missing assets behave. Some added value above the annotations, but thin.
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 front-loaded sentence with no filler, listing the returned facets compactly. It is appropriately sized, though the density of untranslated jargon (CPK, xfbin, NUCC) slightly reduces immediate readability.
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?
An output schema exists, so the return shape need not be spelled out, and annotations cover safety. However, with 0% parameter coverage and no usage routing, the definition leaves key invocation details unaddressed for a tool with two required inputs.
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% for all three parameters, so the description must compensate. It hints that 'game' relates to cross-game lookups and that chunks are listed, but never explains the required 'path' format or what 'max_chunks' limits. Two required params and one optional param remain semantically undocumented.
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 identifies a resource ('One extracted CPK file') and enumerates what info it carries (paths, cross-game entry, xfbin chunk list for NUCC files), but has no explicit verb and reads as a contents list. It never distinguishes itself from close siblings like storm_asset_find or storm_show, leaving the agent to guess which one to call. Purpose is inferable but not crisply stated.
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?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool, when not to, or which sibling (storm_asset_find, storm_show, storm_resolve) covers adjacent needs. The agent is left to infer usage entirely from the noun-phrase description.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.