jms_get_asset_access

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It implies a read-only operation through 'Summarize' but does not explicitly state non-destructive behavior, auth requirements, or any side effects. This is minimal disclosure for a tool without annotations.

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 with no filler. It communicates the core action and subject clearly. It earns its place, though it could be expanded with usage context.

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?

The tool has a simple 1-param schema and an output schema, but the description lacks usage guidelines and explicit behavioral transparency. Without annotations, the description is too sparse to fully inform an agent when to invoke this tool versus related siblings. The absence of any 'when to use' language is a significant gap.

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 only parameter, asset_id, is not described in the schema (0% coverage). The description references 'one asset,' which implies asset_id identifies that asset, but it doesn't explicitly define the parameter's format or usage. Since it's a single, self-explanatory parameter, the contextual compensation is borderline adequate.

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 the specific verb 'Summarize' and identifies the resource ('accounts, protocols, and connect methods') for 'one asset'. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like jms_list_connect_methods (which lists methods globally) and jms_get_asset (which likely gets asset details). However, 'summarize' is somewhat vague about the exact output format.

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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description doesn't mention exclusions, prerequisites, or when to prefer jms_get_asset or jms_list_connect_methods. It simply states what it does, leaving the agent to infer usage context.

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