utmt-get-room-assets

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It clearly describes the output content (sprites, objects, code, layers) but does not mention that this is a read-only operation, return format, potential error conditions, or performance implications. It adds some value beyond the schema but lacks rich behavioral context.

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 concise, with two sentences that front-load the purpose ('Get all assets used in a room') and enumerate key output categories. The second sentence adds practical value about efficiency ('One call replaces multiple round-trips') without redundancy. Every phrase earns its place.

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 compound tool returning multiple asset types, the description does a solid job of enumerating the contents and even includes details like dimensions and object associations. It does not describe the exact output structure (e.g., JSON fields), but the absence of an output schema makes this a minor gap. The tool's complexity is high, yet the description is reasonably complete for an agent to know what to expect.

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 schema describes all 3 parameters (cliPath, roomName, dataFilePath) with 100% coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add any additional meaning about the parameters beyond what is already in the schema; it neither clarifies their usage nor provides examples, so no extra credit is warranted.

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 with a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('all assets used in a room'). It enumerates the returned asset categories (sprites, objects, code entries, layer summary), distinguishing it from sibling tools like utmt-get-entity or utmt-list-entities by focusing on a room-wide aggregation.

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 when to use this tool by stating 'One call replaces multiple round-trips,' which suggests using it when needing a comprehensive asset view without multiple requests. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternative tools for narrower queries, so it misses the 'explicit exclusions' level.

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