Find Assets

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the read-only safety profile is covered. The description adds only the extension-filtering behavior and does not disclose details such as recursion, case sensitivity, or behavior when no assets match. With annotations handling safety, a mid score is appropriate.

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 front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It is appropriately terse for a simple tool, though it leaves a little room for a clause about scope or alternatives.

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 tool is low-complexity, the schema documents all parameters at 100%, readOnlyHint covers safety, and an output schema exists. The only notable gap is sibling-tool routing, which is already reflected in the usage_guidelines score, so the overall definition is nearly complete.

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 100%, so extensions, relative, and project_path are already documented. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond identifying that filtering is by extension, which is the baseline contribution expected when schemas are complete.

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 names a specific verb (find), resource (assets), and filter (by extension), so an agent can tell what it does. However, it does not explicitly differentiate it from sibling tools like godot_find_by_pattern or godot_list_resources beyond that 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?

"Find assets by extension" implies the natural use case is locating project assets by file extension, but it gives no guidance about when to prefer this over alternative find/list tools and no exclusion criteria. This is implied usage rather than explicit routing.

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