get_r_asset_asset_interface_id

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals it is a GET request (read-only), but does not mention authentication requirements, potential errors, rate limits, or pagination specifics. It also fails to clarify whether the path_params `{id}` is mandatory despite the schema marking it optional. The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond the HTTP method.

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 two crisp sentences. The first states the purpose, the second tells where to place parameters. There is no redundant fluff; every sentence earns its place, and the key information is front-loaded.

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 with an output schema (indicated but not shown), the description covers the core usage. However, it does not differentiate from the likely list variant sibling, does not mention error handling or authorization, and does not confirm whether the ID is required. These gaps leave the agent uncertain about essential invocation details.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It gives high-level guidance on what goes into path_params (route IDs), query (filters/pagination), and headers (required headers), but omits the body parameter entirely. It does not specify any field names or formats, leaving the agent to infer from the open-ended schema. This is partial compensation but not enough for full semantic clarity.

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 the exact action ('Retrieve asset interface') and the endpoint (`GET /r/asset/asset_interface/{id}`). It clearly identifies the resource and distinguishes it from the many other `get_r_asset_*` siblings by naming the specific 'asset_interface' resource.

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 explains how to construct the call (route IDs in path_params, filters/pagination in query, headers in headers), but it does not specify when to use this tool versus the similar sibling `get_r_asset_asset_interface` (which likely lists all interfaces). No exclusions or alternatives are mentioned beyond the mechanics.

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