list_missing_uids

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must convey behavioral traits. The verb 'List' implies a read-only operation, but the description does not disclose the scope of 'files' (e.g., all project files, resources) or whether the operation has any side effects. It also doesn't describe the output format or how missing UIDs are determined, leaving the agent with incomplete behavioral expectations.

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 a single, short sentence that gets directly to the point. It is front-loaded with the action and object, with no filler or redundant details. This is appropriate for a simple tool.

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 absence of annotations and an output schema, the description is too sparse to be fully contextual. It doesn't clarify whether 'files' refers to project resources, scenes, or all assets, nor does it specify the return format. The agent would need to infer or test behavior, which is a gap for such a minimally structured tool.

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 an empty schema, so there is nothing for the description to explain. The baseline is 4 per the rubric, and the description doesn't need to add anything beyond what's already evident.

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 clear resource ('files missing UIDs'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like fix_missing_uids and update_project_uids, which perform mutations rather than listing. The meaning is clear even without additional context.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as list_project_files or fix_missing_uids. There is no mention of prerequisites, intended workflow, or exclusion criteria. The only usage implied is that it lists files with missing UIDs, but no explicit recommendations are given.

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