validate_game_asset

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explicitly states the tool is read-only, never modifies the asset, returns passed/errors/warnings, and reports unset constraints as warnings. It omits details like how the target asset is resolved, but the disclosed safety and output behavior is strong.

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?

Three compact sentences front-load the core purpose, then cover return shape and read-only behavior. There is no fluff and every sentence contributes useful information.

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 12-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description is too thin. It explains safety and return categories but does not say which asset or objects are validated, how the objects parameter interacts with selection, or when to prefer this over the similar analyze_game_asset sibling.

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 covers only about half of the parameters, and the description adds no parameter-level meaning. Parameters like objects, max_objects, check_topology, require_materials, and forbid_non_manifold remain undocumented in both schema and description, so the description does not compensate for the coverage gap.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Check an asset against explicit budgets and conventions.' It is clear about what the tool does, but it does not distinguish itself from the sibling tool analyze_game_asset, so it misses the top score.

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 line 'a plain call is still a useful health check' implies a default use case even with no constraints set. However, there is no explicit guidance about when to choose this tool over analyze_game_asset or other related validation/analysis tools.

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