Identify missing assets in a 3ds Max scene by listing files with unresolvable paths and their reference counts.
只列出丢失（无法解析路径）的资源，并给出每个文件的引用次数。 [English] List only the assets whose paths cannot be resolved, with a reference count per file.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already signal readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so no safety contradiction exists. The description adds behavioral detail beyond the annotations by specifying that it filters to missing assets only and emits a per-file reference count, which meaningfully informs the agent about the tool's output behavior.
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 extremely concise, providing the essential behavior in two short sentences. The core filtering condition ('only missing') appears first, and the bilingual repetition does not add harmful length, keeping the definition front-loaded and scannable.
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 the tool's low complexity, no parameters, and existing annotations, the description adequately covers what the tool does and what it returns. It does not detail output formatting or edge cases, but for a read-only listing operation this is sufficient for an agent to invoke it correctly.
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?
The tool has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4 and the description does not need to explain parameter meanings. The input schema is fully documented by being empty, and no additional parameter semantics are required.
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 a clearly defined resource ('assets whose paths cannot be resolved'), which distinguishes it from the broader sibling get_scene_assets and from relink_assets. It also states the output feature (reference count per file), making the tool's purpose unambiguous.
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 clearly implies when to use this tool: when the agent needs to identify unresolved/missing assets rather than all assets. It does not explicitly name an alternative or state when not to use it, but the phrase 'list only' provides clear contextual guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.