dagster_asset_state

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

With no annotations at all, the description carries the full disclosure burden, yet it only reveals one behavioral detail: that dots in the key are normalized to slashes. It never states that the operation is read-only, what 'state' comprises (materialization, freshness, partitions), or what happens for an unknown key.

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 sentence with the purpose front-loaded followed by a parenthetical parameter hint; nothing is redundant. The nested quotes and guillemets are slightly awkward but do not obscure the content.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described, and a one-parameter read tool does not need extensive prose. Still, with zero annotation coverage and no statement of what 'état' includes or how missing assets are handled, the description is only minimally adequate.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate, and it does provide a format, two concrete examples, and a normalization rule. However, it omits other basics such as case sensitivity, whether repository/location prefixes are accepted, or what a malformed key produces.

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 names the resource (an asset) and what it returns (state and metadata), which is specific enough to distinguish it from listing tools like dagster_list_assets or dagster_run_detail. It stops short of explicitly contrasting itself with those siblings, leaving the agent to infer the granularity difference.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus dagster_list_assets or dagster_overview, and no mention of preconditions such as the asset needing to exist. The only usage-oriented content is the key-format hint, which is input syntax rather than situational guidance.

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