Get Portfolio

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the description doesn't need to restate safety. It adds return field context, but creates slight ambiguity: it lists fields as if always returned, while the schema says defaults are gid and resource_type and these fields require opt_fields. No annotation contradiction, but behavioral nuance is imperfect.

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?

Three concise sentences: purpose, return fields, and sibling pointer. Each sentence earns its place with no fluff. The most important information is front-loaded in the first sentence.

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?

With 100% schema coverage and strong annotations, the description is largely complete. It covers what to use, what it returns, and how to obtain the required GID. The only gap is not clarifying that the listed fields depend on opt_fields, which could mislead an agent expecting them by default.

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 100%: both portfolio_gid and opt_fields are fully described, including the pointer to asana_get_portfolios for GIDs. The description adds no new parameter-level details beyond the schema, so baseline 3 applies.

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 tool gets full details for a portfolio by GID, with a specific verb and resource. It lists the key return fields (name, color, public status, owner, members, workspace), distinguishing it from sibling tools like asana_get_portfolios by explicitly pointing there for GID discovery.

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 implicitly tells the agent to use this tool when a portfolio GID is already known and full details are needed. It explicitly directs to asana_get_portfolios for finding GIDs, which is a clear alternative. It doesn't mention other siblings like asana_get_portfolio_items, but the guidance is sufficient.

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