art.asset.inspect_version

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. 'Get details' clearly indicates a read-only operation with no destructive side effects, which is transparent. However, it does not disclose any additional behavior such as existence requirements, authentication needs, or error handling.

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, front-loaded sentence with no filler or redundant information. Every word contributes to the core meaning, making it appropriately concise for a simple getter.

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?

Given the low complexity (two required parameters, no output schema), the description and schema together are sufficient to invoke the tool correctly. It lacks explicit return-value details and sibling differentiation, which prevents a perfect score, but the core invocation path is clear.

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%, with both 'asset_id' and 'version' described in the input schema. The description adds no further meaning to these parameters beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline score of 3 applies.

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 and resource, 'Get details of a specific asset version,' which clearly states the operation. It does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like art.asset.get or art.asset.current, relying only on the word 'version' for distinction.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as art.asset.get, art.asset.current, or art.asset.history. No conditions, exclusions, or alternative recommendations are mentioned.

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