photos_get_asset

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true. The description adds behavioral context beyond annotations by specifying 'local' (scope) and 'capped' (a constraint on scanning). This provides useful additional transparency without contradiction.

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-crafted sentence that includes all essential elements: action, resource, identification method, and constraints. No unnecessary words 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?

Given the existence of an output schema and annotations, the description covers the core purpose and constraints. However, it fails to explain the parameters (0% coverage), leaving a significant gap for a low-complexity tool with only 2 parameters.

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%, so the description should compensate. However, it only mentions 'by opaque handle' and 'capped', without explaining the 'handle' parameter or the 'max_scan_assets' parameter. The agent lacks sufficient guidance on what these parameters mean or how to use them.

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 the verb 'Get', the resource 'local Photos asset metadata', and the method 'by opaque handle'. It also notes 'capped and read-only', which distinguishes it from sibling tools like photos_search (search) and photos_export_asset (export).

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 when an opaque handle is available, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like photos_search or photos_export_asset. No when-not or alternative guidance is provided.

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