tool_copy_asset

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose useful behavior: auto-creating subdirectories and auto-prefixing 'game/' to dest. It does not state whether an existing destination file is overwritten, whether failures are raised or returned via the ok flag, or any permission constraints — material gaps for a filesystem write.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action, then structured Args/Returns blocks that are easy to scan. The second sentence partially restates the first, but overall it is well-organized with little waste.

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?

With no annotations and no output schema, the description supplies the return shape ({ok, message, dest_path}) as well as parameter formats, which covers most of what an agent needs. The remaining gap is overwrite/error semantics on an existing destination.

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%, but the description compensates well by documenting all three parameters: project_path as an absolute path to the project root, source as an absolute on-disk path, and dest as a relative path within the project with an example. It adds the absolute-vs-relative distinction the bare schema lacks, though the project_path boundary (game dir vs root) could be stated more sharply.

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?

States a specific verb (copy) and resource (asset file) plus the target (a Ren'Py project), and names the asset kinds it handles (image, font, audio). It is unambiguous and distinguishable from the inspection/lint siblings like tool_lint_project or tool_read_script.

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 establishes the context of use ('copies a file from anywhere on the system into the project's game directory'), which implies when to reach for it. However, it never states when not to use it, what happens if the destination already exists, or how it relates to sibling tools, so guidance remains implied rather than explicit.

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