get_asset_evidence

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

With zero annotations, the description carries the full burden and discloses almost nothing: no read-only assurance, no auth/permission requirements, no return format details, and no note on what happens if the evidence_id is missing. Only the implicit fact that it returns a thumbnail is conveyed.

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 no padding, and the resource is front-loaded after the verb. It is efficient, though arguably too terse to be fully useful.

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 no annotations, no output schema, and an undocumented parameter, the description leaves key information an agent needs unstated. It does not clarify the return value, the id source, or how this differs from the many sibling retrieval tools.

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% for the single required parameter 'evidence_id', and the description adds no meaning about what an evidence id is, where it comes from, or its format. The description fails to 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 (Return) and resource (native thumbnail), which is clearer than the tool name 'get_asset_evidence' suggests. However, it does not distinguish itself from closely related siblings such as get_preview, get_studio_preview, or get_art_reference, leaving the agent to guess which retrieval tool to use.

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 explicit when-to-use guidance and no named alternatives. The phrase 'that supports an asset description' hints at context but never states when this evidence thumbnail should be fetched versus a general preview.

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