inspect_asset

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

With no annotations provided, the description should disclose behavioral traits. It only states it reads data, but does not cover edge cases (e.g., invalid path, missing asset), performance, or safety implications. It lacks behavioral depth beyond the basic read operation.

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, well-structured sentence of 22 words. It is front-loaded with the key verb and resource, and every word adds value. No redundancy or filler.

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 enumerates the returned data (class, tags, dependencies, file size) which is helpful. However, it omits error handling, format details, and behavior for non-existent assets. Still, for a simple read tool, it is largely sufficient.

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 input schema covers 100% of the single parameter with a clear description including examples. The tool description adds no new parameter information; the schema already provides adequate semantics, so 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 specifies the action ('Read everything'), the resource ('a single asset'), and explicitly lists the returned data (class, tags, dependencies, file size). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'bulk_inspect_assets' or asset-type-specific inspectors.

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 implicitly states it is for a single asset, allowing inference of when to use it. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions (e.g., for detailed type-specific info use other inspectors).

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