Index local game assets

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

Annotations provide readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true. The description adds concrete behavioral details: files are hashed, optional .asset.json metadata is read, symlinks are skipped, and index refresh is atomic. No contradiction with annotations.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the primary action. Every word adds value—no redundancy, no fluff.

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 core process but omits several details: no mention of return value (no output schema), no prerequisites (e.g., configured roots), no explanation of the 'rebuild' mode, and no indication of performance or idempotency. Adequate but incomplete for a tool with no 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 50% (only max_files has a description). The tool description does not add any meaning to the parameters—it doesn't explain the mode enum or clarify max_files beyond what the schema already provides. This leaves the agent without guidance on choosing mode or setting the cap.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: incrementally scan local asset roots, hash changed files, read metadata, and atomically refresh the search index. It uses specific verbs and resources, and is distinct from sibling tools like get_game_asset or search_game_assets.

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 the tool is used for updating the local search index but does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives (e.g., rebuild vs. incremental, or when to use search_game_assets). No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned.

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