get_primary_asset_cook_rules

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the return object shape, which is useful in the absence of an output schema, but does not go beyond that with error behavior, auth needs, or rate limits.

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?

Two short sentences with no filler; the key scope is front-loaded before the return shape. The slash-separated field list in the first sentence is slightly dense but still efficient.

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?

For a simple one-parameter read tool with full annotation coverage and a documented parameter, the description provides the missing return shape since there is no output schema. It could mention where to obtain primary asset type names or its relation to set_primary_asset_cook_rule, but the essentials are present.

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% for the single parameter primary_asset_type, and the schema already provides the example 'Item'. The description restates 'a single primary asset type' but adds no new syntax or semantic detail beyond the schema.

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 clear verb ('Read') and specific resource ('Priority / ChunkId / bApplyRecursively / CookRule for a single primary asset type'), so an agent can tell what the tool returns. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from related siblings such as get_primary_asset_type_info or set_primary_asset_cook_rule.

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 gives no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no alternative tools. The scope 'for a single primary asset type' is implied, but an agent must infer when to call this rather than get_primary_asset_types or get_primary_asset_type_info.

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