art.asset.exists

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden. 'Check whether... exists' conveys a read-only, side-effect-free predicate operation rather than a mutation of registry data. For such a simple existence check, this level of behavioral disclosure is sufficiently clear, even though it does not spell out response format or edge cases like 'returns false for missing ID.'

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?

One sentence with no wasted words. The operation is front-loaded, the resource is stetted immediately after, and every word contributes to understanding. This is concise to be model-parseable in a tool list.

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 single-parameter, side-effect-free existence predicate, the description is essentially complete: the parameter is fully documented by schema, and 'check whether it exists' naturally implies a boolean/presence outcome. An explicit 'returns true if the asset exists, false otherwise' would be marginally more precise given there is no output schema, but it is not missing for high-confidence invocation.

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%, so the schema already documents 'id' as 'Asset ID to check.' The description merely refers to 'the given ID' and adds no extra format, validation, or usage details beyond the schema, meaning it meets the baseline but does not improve on it.

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 states a clear verb ('Check whether') and resource ('an asset with the given ID exists in the registry'), which is unambiguous about what the tool does. It also differentiates from sibling asset tools such as art.asset.get, art.asset.find, and art.asset.current by framing this as a pure existence test rather than a retrieval, search, or state-changing operation.

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 the tool is the right choice when an agent only needs to verify whether an asset exists, but it never explicitly says when to prefer this over art.asset.get or art.asset.find. No alternatives, exclusions, or contextual conditions are provided, so the agent must infer usage from the verb 'exists' and the sibling tool names.

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