toolbox_info

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose the returned fields and that no plugin is required, which is useful for a read-only metadata lookup, but it omits error behavior, rate limits, and what happens with invalid or missing IDs.

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?

Two short, front-loaded sentences with zero waste. The core action and return fields come first, and the plugin note is a useful qualifier.

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 read tool with a complete one-parameter schema and no output schema, the description is nearly sufficient: it states the action, the input domain, the returned fields, and that no plugin is needed. It could round out by pointing to toolbox_search as the way to obtain asset IDs.

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 100%, and the single parameter assetIds is fully documented as 'Up to 100 numeric asset IDs'. The description reinforces that these are catalog asset IDs but adds no format or syntax detail beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: 'Get details for catalog asset IDs', and enumerates the returned fields (name, type, creator, description). This clearly distinguishes it from toolbox_search, which finds assets rather than retrieving known IDs, though the sibling relationship is not made explicit.

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 only usage-related note is 'No plugin required', which is context rather than guidance. There is no statement about when to use this versus toolbox_search or insert_asset, nor any prerequisite like already having numeric asset IDs.

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