analyze_game_asset

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

With no annotations supplied, the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it opens with 'Read-only' and ends with 'Modifies nothing'—an explicit side-effect guarantee. It also discloses what is computed and which issue categories are reported, so an agent knows exactly what behavior to expect.

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?

Everything in the description earns its place: a dense but ordered output list, the safety statement, and the render-pairing guidance. It is front-loaded with the key read-only fact, and the usage advice is delivered in one tight sentence.

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 tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description tells the agent what fields will appear in the report and how to interpret the results ('statistics catch budget problems'). Parameters are fully documented in the schema, so nothing needed to invoke the tool correctly is missing.

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%, so the schema already documents all three parameters clearly. The tool description adds useful output context but no additional semantics for `objects`, `check_topology`, or `include_children` 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 names a specific resource (an asset) and enumerates exact report contents, so the tool's function is unambiguous. It does not explicitly contrast itself with the similar sibling validate_game_asset, and 'read-only report' only separates it from mutating/export tools.

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?

It explicitly says to pair with a render and that statistics catch budget problems, giving a concrete usage pattern. It doesn't name alternative tools or exclusions (e.g., validate_game_asset for pass/fail, get_mesh_data for raw data), so it falls short of full routing guidance.

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