rush_dead_asset

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It says 'Scan' but does not clarify whether the tool is read-only, what it reports, whether it modifies files, or what constitutes 'dead media'. This is thin coverage for a tool that may perform analysis.

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 one short, front-loaded sentence with no filler or redundant phrasing. It is efficient, though the phrase 'dead media' is somewhat jargon-heavy and could be clearer.

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 zero parameters and an output schema available, the core call shape is reasonably complete. However, the lack of behavioral disclosure and the absence of any guidance distinguishing this tool from rush_dead leave meaningful gaps for an agent trying to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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 input schema is empty and schema description coverage is 100%, so there are no parameters for the description to document. With zero parameters, the description has no additional burden to explain argument semantics.

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 verb ('Scan') and a resource ('unreferenced assets and dead media'), so an agent can understand the basic operation. However, it does not differentiate this tool from the closely named sibling 'rush_dead', leaving some ambiguity about exactly which dead-item analysis this tool performs.

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?

There is no guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives like rush_dead or other audit/scan siblings. The description implies a scanning purpose but gives no conditions, exclusions, or suggestions for when another tool would be more appropriate.

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