art.qa.asset

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. 'Run QA checks' and 'returns a full QA report' clearly indicate a read-only verification behavior that produces a report. It does not explicitly address authorization, mutation, or edge cases like missing assets, but the described operation is evidently non-mutating.

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 no fluff: the first states the action and resource, the second states the exact output. It is front-loaded and every word contributes.

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?

The schema fully covers the two input parameters, and the description communicates the return value shape. Since no output schema is provided, stating 'full QA report with all rule results' is a useful minimum. A brief note on what 'full' entails or how 'profile' affects the report would be beneficial but not blocking.

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%: both 'asset_id' and 'profile' have descriptions and the enum values are fully listed. The description adds no extra parameter semantics beyond calling out the single-asset scope, so it is appropriately average.

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 starts with a clear verb ('Run QA checks') and a specific resource ('a single asset'), then specifies the result ('full QA report with all rule results'). This naturally distinguishes the tool from siblings like 'art.qa.batch' (many assets), 'art.qa.rule' (a single rule), and 'art.qa.gate'.

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 phrase 'on a single asset' provides a clear usage context: choose this tool when there is exactly one asset to QA. It does not explicitly spell out alternatives or when to use other QA tools instead, but the scope is clear enough for reasonable selection.

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