get_content_assetGet one owned content revision, including its review state and exact content hashes.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| asset_id | Yes | Full UUID from the matching list tool. |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| text | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint. The description adds minor context (owned revision, included fields) but does not significantly expand beyond annotations.
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 concise sentence that front-loads the verb and resource, with no unnecessary words.
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 tool has one parameter and an output schema, the description is complete: it specifies what is retrieved and key included fields (review state, hashes). No gaps.
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?
With 100% schema coverage, the schema already describes the asset_id parameter. The tool description adds no additional meaning for the parameter.
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 retrieves one owned content revision, specifying what is included (review state, content hashes). It distinguishes from sibling list_content_assets and create/update 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?
The description does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives like list_content_assets. Usage is implied from the purpose but not explicitly stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.