inspect_asset

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose read semantics and that versions are immutable, but says nothing about permissions, behavior when the version is absent, or the difference in output between the two modes.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with zero filler; the primary read behavior leads and the version variant follows. Nothing could be trimmed without losing meaning.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and the core state-vs-version distinction is covered. However, for a four-parameter tool with 0% schema coverage, the description leaves asset_type/project_root semantics and the optionality of version unexplained.

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% across four parameters, so the description must compensate and largely does not. Only "version" is hinted at via "one exact immutable version"; project_root, asset_type, and asset_id carry no added meaning, nor does it clarify that version is optional.

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 ("Read") and resource ("one asset") plus the two modes of inspection: lifecycle state or an exact immutable version. This clearly separates it from list_assets and compare_asset_versions, though it never names a sibling explicitly.

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 two modes imply when to use it (single-asset lookup, or pinning a specific version), but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance and no pointer to alternatives like list_assets for bulk reads or compare_asset_versions for diffs.

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