get_broken_asset_refs

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It clearly states what assets are listed and the condition, implying a read-only operation. However, it does not explicitly confirm no side effects or disclose performance implications.

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, front-loaded with the verb and resource, with no wasted words. It is maximally concise while conveying the essential information.

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?

Given no output schema and many sibling tools, the description adequately explains the tool's purpose. It would benefit from mentioning the output format (e.g., list of asset paths), but the current description is sufficient for basic understanding.

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?

There are no parameters, and the schema coverage is 100% (empty). The description adds no parameter information, but per guidelines, 0 parameters yields a baseline of 4.

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 ('List') and resource ('prefabs, scenes, materials') with a clear condition ('missing GUID reference'), distinguishing it from sibling tools that list assets without the broken reference filter.

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 a use case (finding broken references) but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like find_references or list_prefabs. No context or exclusions are given.

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