Api asset capabilities retrieve

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered structurally. The one genuinely additive piece is the disclosure that unauthorized related fields are masked in the response, which is useful permission-aware behavior, but nothing is said about required permissions, missing-ID behavior, 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?

It is one short sentence with no filler, but it is not front-loaded with the resource being fetched; the generic 'Return a single object' leads instead of the actual subject.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description must carry the return-shape burden; it mentions masking but not what fields the asset-capability object contains, nor the identifier format. For a lookup tool in a very large sibling set, this leaves real gaps.

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 single required 'id' parameter has 0% schema description coverage, so the description is the only place its meaning could be explained — yet it says nothing about what kind of identifier is expected (numeric PK, UUID, ref) or where to obtain it.

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 says it returns a single object, which is close to a restatement of the name's 'retrieve'. It never names the resource (asset capability) nor distinguishes itself from the many sibling retrievers such as asset_capabilities_object_retrieve or asset_capabilities_list, so the agent must infer scope from the tool name alone.

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?

There is no statement of when to use this tool versus the list, object_retrieve, cascade_info, or batch variants that sit alongside it in the asset_capabilities family. No prerequisites or exclusions are given.

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