wb_assets_info

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

With no annotations supplied, the description carries the full behavioral burden. 'Read' conveys that the operation is non-mutating, which is worth something, but nothing is said about permissions, what happens with an unknown ID, or whether the database argument is required versus the id argument — the dual-mode branching is only vaguely implied.

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?

A single short sentence with the resource front-loaded and no filler. It is efficient, though the terseness leans toward under-specification rather than being genuinely concise.

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 two-parameter read tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema description coverage, the description leaves the essential mechanics unexplained: what catalog metadata looks like when only database is given, and what is returned for an exact ID. An agent could invoke it but would be guessing about inputs and results.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It does map loosely onto the two parameters — 'database' selects the catalog, 'id' selects one exact asset — which is more than the schema offers, but it never says what form the database string takes (path, name, alias) or that database is required while id is optional.

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?

States a specific verb (Read) and resource (asset-catalog metadata), plus the alternate mode of fetching one exact asset ID. That implicitly separates it from wb_assets_search and wb_assets_build, but the description never names the sibling, so the differentiation is inferred rather than stated.

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 phrase 'one exact asset ID' hints that this is the lookup path when you already know the ID, as opposed to search-based discovery, but there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or named alternative. The agent must infer the routing decision from the sibling name wb_assets_search.

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