Get asset

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. The 'get' verb implies a read-only operation, and the description transparently lists the returned content. However, it does not explicitly state that no side effects occur or how errors are handled for invalid slugs, leaving minor behavioral gaps.

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, well-structured sentence that front-loads the core purpose and then uses a colon to list the specific details returned. Every element is informative and there is no redundancy or fluff.

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 simple getter with no output schema, the description adequately conveys what the tool returns by enumerating the main detail categories (CDN URL, licence, stats, bounding box, animations, loader snippets). It does not mention response format or error scenarios, but these are less critical for a single-asset fetch and the listed fields provide strong completeness.

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 has zero description coverage, so the description must explain the 'slug' parameter. It only says 'by slug', which adds little beyond the parameter name itself; it does not define what a slug is, how to obtain one, or provide examples. The schema's pattern covers format but the description fails to add meaningful semantic context.

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 a specific verb+resource ('Full details for one asset by slug') and enumerates the returned fields, making the purpose immediately obvious. It implicitly distinguishes from siblings like search_assets and get_asset_usage by focusing on a single asset's full detail set, but does not explicitly name alternatives.

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 'by slug' gives clear context on when to use this tool: when the caller has a specific asset slug and wants complete details. It does not mention exclusions or alternatives, but the intended usage is evident from the description.

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