create_asset_documentation

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

Adds real behavioral context beyond the annotations: it does not load the asset, does not write a file, and errors without an editor world, plus it discloses that dependencies/referencers are depth-1 and capped at 100 with truncation flags. It does not resolve the tension between 'no file written' and readOnlyHint=false (does it mutate any state?), which keeps it short of a 5.

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?

Purpose and key constraints are front-loaded in one tight sentence before the return shape. The inline Returns block is lengthy but justified because there is no output schema, so it is mostly earned space.

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 no output schema, the description carries the return-value burden and does so thoroughly, listing every field including truncation flags and the file_exists/file_size relationship. Error condition and depth/cap limits are covered; only the absence of any sibling routing guidance leaves a small 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?

Schema coverage is 100% and the schema already explains that asset_name accepts a package or object path and that a bare name is not resolved. The description adds no parameter meaning beyond that, so the 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?

States a specific verb ('Build a JSON record') and resource ('one asset from the Asset Registry') and enumerates exactly what the record contains (identity, size/date, category/usage blurb, depth-1 dependencies/referencers). An agent can tell this composite 'documentation' tool apart from single-purpose siblings like get_asset_metadata, get_asset_file_size, or get_asset_dependencies without opening the schema.

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 when it is appropriate ('without loading it or writing a file', 'Errors without an editor world') but never explicitly states when to prefer it over siblings such as get_asset_metadata, get_asset_dependencies_recursive, or generate_asset_report. Usage is inferable rather than directed.

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