superops_assets_get

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only outlines return content (hardware, OS, network details) but fails to mention side effects (none expected, but not stated), authentication requirements, rate limits, or that it is a read-only operation. Minimal behavioral context.

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 a single sentence, concise and front-loaded with the key action and resource. No redundant words. Could be slightly improved by adding structure (e.g., listing key data points) but is currently efficient.

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?

Given no output schema, the description should ideally clarify the return format or key fields. It lists categories (hardware, OS, network) but not exact fields, leaving some ambiguity. For a simple get tool with one parameter, it is marginally complete but could be more detailed.

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 coverage is 100% for the single parameter 'assetId', with a clear description in the schema. The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 clearly states the action ('Get detailed information'), the resource ('a specific asset'), and the scope ('including hardware, OS, and network details'). It effectively distinguishes from sibling tools like superops_assets_list (list all) and superops_assets_patches/software (focused subsets).

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description implies use when you have a specific asset ID and need full details, but does not mention when not to use it or specify alternatives like search or list tools. The context is clear but lacks exclusion criteria.

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