spine_preview_check_assets

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It clearly discloses the tool is read-only and does not write JSON, which is the key behavioral trait. However, it does not detail what happens on failure (e.g., error handling) or whether any state is modified.

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 (two sentences) and front-loaded. Every word adds value without redundancy. It efficiently communicates the tool's purpose and key behavioral constraint.

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 simple existence-check tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential purpose and read-only nature. It could mention return type or status messages for missing assets, but the description is largely complete given the tool's complexity.

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 coverage is 100% with each parameter having a complete description. The tool description adds overall context but does not provide additional parameter-level meaning beyond the schema. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 checks for the existence of JSON, atlas, and atlas reference textures required for preview, and confirms target animation existence. It explicitly states it is read-only. The name 'spine_preview_check_assets' aligns perfectly with this purpose, and the tool is distinct from siblings.

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 usage for checking assets before preview but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like spine_preview_get_config or other preview tools. No context or exclusions are provided, so usage is only implied.

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