get_scene_assets

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond that: it enumerates external asset types and emphasizes that resolved status is included, making it clear this is a diagnostic/preflight inspection rather than a modification operation.

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 core message is concise and front-loaded, with the key usage warning immediately after the description. The bilingual duplication adds some redundancy, but the text is still short and each language version is clear.

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?

For a zero-parameter, read-only inspection tool, the description provides enough context to know what it does, why to run it, and roughly what it returns ('resolved status'). It does not define the exact status values or return shape, but that is a minor gap given the tool's simplicity and the read-only annotation.

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 and 100% schema coverage, so the baseline is 4. The description does not need to explain parameters, and it does not introduce any ambiguity about what inputs are expected.

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 a specific verb ('list') and a specific resource ('all external assets the scene references') while enumerating the asset categories (bitmaps, proxies, point caches, XRefs). It also adds the distinguishing output trait, 'resolved status', which separates it from related tools like find_missing_assets or list_objects.

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 gives a clear usage context: check before packaging, moving, or rendering to avoid missing textures. It does not explicitly compare with sibling alternatives like find_missing_assets or relink_assets, so it lacks the when-not-to-use guidance that would earn a 5.

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