Api assets graph retrieve

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true, but the description says assets can be 'viewed or edited', implying mutation capability. That directly conflicts with the read-only annotation profile and adds no useful behavioral context about the graph response.

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 single sentence is short, but it spends words on the filler phrase 'API endpoint' and includes a misleading 'edited'. It is under-specified rather than effectively concise, and the one sentence does not earn its place.

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?

There is no output schema, and the description never explains what a graph retrieval returns or how it differs from assets_list or assets_retrieve. For a graph-specific endpoint in a large family of asset tools, this definition leaves the agent without the context needed to select it correctly.

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 tool has zero parameters, so there are no parameter semantics for the description to explain. The baseline for a no-parameter tool is 4; the description neither helps nor harms here.

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 the resource (assets) but only gives the generic operations 'viewed or edited' and never mentions that this is a graph-retrieval endpoint. It does not distinguish the tool from sibling asset tools such as assets_list, assets_retrieve, or entities_graph_retrieve.

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 guidance on when to use this tool, when not to use it, or which asset/graph sibling to choose instead. Worse, saying assets can be 'edited' implies a write use case that this retrieve endpoint does not support.

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