find_unused_resources

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

With no annotations provided, the description fully carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It states the tool is advisory only, never auto-deletes, and warns about false positives (uid:// and dynamic references). This is excellent transparency about the tool's non-destructive nature and limitations.

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, information-dense sentence that front-loads the core action ('List resource files under a path...') and appends important caveats. It is concise but slightly verbose with the em-dash phrase, making it less elegant than it could be.

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?

The description covers the tool's purpose, scope, and key guardrails, which is largely complete for a listing tool. However, it omits the meaning of the include_addons parameter and does not describe the output format, which would be useful given the absence of an output schema.

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%, and the description does not clarify the parameters. It indirectly references 'path' via 'under a path', but says nothing about 'include_addons'. The parameter names are self-explanatory, but the description fails to compensate for the lack of schema documentation.

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 clearly identifies the resource ('resource files under a path') and the criterion ('no scene, script or config file text-references'). It distinguishes itself from siblings like find_node_references and find_script_references by focusing on unused resources rather than locating references.

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 explicit usage cautions: 'advisory only', 'uid:// and dynamic references are false positives', and 'never auto-delete'. These clearly tell the agent when it is safe to use and how to interpret results, though it does not explicitly name alternative tools for similar tasks.

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