art.asset.approval.inspect

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. The description states it's a 'Get' operation, implying read-only, but does not disclose whether it returns full record details, partial information, or if it requires special permissions. For a simple read-by-ID tool, this is adequate but sparse, missing any mention of error behavior or returned data shape.

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, clear sentence that is appropriately concise and front-loaded with the core action. It does its job without fluff or redundancy.

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 a single parameter, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is reasonably complete for a simple fetch-by-ID tool. However, it lacks information about what the response contains or whether the tool is restricted to certain approval states, which could matter for an agent deciding whether to call it.

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?

The schema description covers 100% of the single parameter, describing 'approval_id' as 'Approval record ID'. The description adds minimal value beyond this, but since coverage is high, the baseline is 3. No additional semantic detail about the ID format (e.g., UUID, numeric) is provided in the description.

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 'Get an approval record by ID' uses a specific verb ('Get') and specifies the resource ('approval record') and the lookup key ('by ID'). It clearly distinguishes this from other asset approval tools like art.asset.approve or art.asset.approval.request, which perform different actions. It doesn't explicitly contrast with siblings, but the purpose is unambiguous.

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: use this when you have an approval record ID and need its details. It doesn't provide explicit context on when to prefer this over art.asset.approve or art.qa.history, but the name and description make it reasonably clear this is a read-only inspection tool. No exclusions or alternatives are named.

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