get_r_asset_browser_extensions_id

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description must carry full behavioral disclosure. It does imply a read-only GET, but it does not mention authentication, how to identify the required ID, possible failure behaviors, or the meaning of the plural 'route IDs' on a single-ID path.

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 short sentences with no filler. The parameter-placement sentence earns its place, though the phrase 'Calls GET ...' is a slightly awkward restatement of the endpoint.

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 GET-by-ID tool, the description is thin. It does not say what a browser extension is, whether the ID is required, what 'filters and pagination' mean for an item lookup, or which header names are expected. The output schema fills some gaps, but the invocation context remains under-specified.

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?

With schema description coverage at 0%, the description needs to compensate but only maps generic parameter categories: IDs in path_params, filters/pagination in query, headers in headers. It never gives the actual path parameter name like `id`, nor any concrete filter or pagination field names.

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 names a concrete resource (browser extension) and a specific operation (Retrieve), and includes the full endpoint path with `{id}`. It does not explicitly name the sibling list endpoint, but the `_id` suffix and path variable make the single-item intent clear enough.

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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool instead of a sibling such as get_r_asset_browser_extensions. The second sentence only explains where to place parameters, not how to choose this tool among the many similar GET endpoints.

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