art.asset.get

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It does state 'Returns the full asset record,' which hints at read-only retrieval, but it does not specify error behavior (e.g., not-found handling), prerequisites (asset must exist), or any side effects. Since 'Get' implies a read, it's minimally transparent but not thorough.

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 zero waste. The key action and return type are front-loaded. Every word adds value, making it easy to scan.

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 get-by-ID tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description is adequate. It states what it does and what it returns. However, it lacks guidance on error conditions, whether the asset must be registered, and how to react to missing IDs. Given the low complexityaging, the gaps are minor but 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?

The input schema already describes the parameter (id) and provides an example value. The description adds no new semantics beyond 'by its ID,' which is redundant with the schema. With 100% schema coverage, baseline is 3; the description doesn't add meaning.

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 uses a specific verb ('Get'), names the resource ('registered asset'), and specifies the lookup key ('by its ID'). It also states the return ('full asset record'). It clearly distinguishes from siblings like art.asset.find (search-oriented) and art.asset.exists (existence check) without needing to open schemas.

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 (when you have an ID and want the full record) but does not explicitly state when to prefer this over art.asset.find, art.asset.exists, or art.asset.current. No exclusions or alternative routing provided.

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