spawn_asset_scan

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses key behavioral traits: 'Spawn generates an asset on first fetch of its path and keeps it there forever', 'there is no catalog API', and 'this bank is the only record of which names you have already used and how they turned out.' This reveals persistence, irreversibility, and sole-source-of-truth nature.

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 three sentences, each earning its place: first states the core action, second explains the behavioral consequence and rationale, third gives the required operational order. No fluff or redundancy.

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 must cover purpose, side effects, and relationship to siblings. It does all that: it explains what is harvested, why the bank is the only record (no catalog API), and how to use the tool in conjunction with spawn_asset_search. The full workflow is conveyed.

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 100%, with both dirs and projectDir already well-described. The description adds workflow context ('any directory', 'each of your game projects') but no new syntactic or semantic detail about the parameters beyond what the schema provides.

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 it 'Harvest every cdn/ asset path used in a project (or any directory) into the local cross-project asset bank' with a specific verb ('harvest') and resource ('cdn/ asset paths'). It distinguishes from sibling tools by explicitly directing users to spawn_asset_search for searching.

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?

Provides explicit usage workflow: 'Run it on each of your game projects once, then use spawn_asset_search before inventing a new asset name.' This names an alternative tool and gives a clear sequence of when to use this scan tool versus searching.

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