get_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. The verb 'Get' conveys a read-only operation, but the description does not disclose potential error behavior (e.g., 404 when not found), authentication requirements, or whether nested asset details are included. It is adequate but sparse.

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, front-loaded sentence of eight words with no filler. Every word contributes meaning, and it is immediately clear what the tool does.

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 2-parameter getter with no output schema, the description covers the essential contract (what it retrieves and by what keys). It does not explain return format or edge cases, but these are less critical given the tool's minimal complexity and the explicit 'Get a single Asset' wording.

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 descriptions are absent (0% coverage), but the description names both parameters and their purpose ('by company_id and asset id'), directly conveying that they are identifiers. This adds meaning beyond the bare type definitions in the schema.

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 uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('Asset') with clear scoping ('single') and identifies the exact lookup keys (company_id and asset id). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_assets, create_asset, update_asset, and get_asset_password.

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 implies usage as a direct single-record retrieval tool, and the sibling set includes list_assets and list_company_assets for broader queries. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over list tools or mention any exclusions, leaving the guidance implicit.

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