Get asset details

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so the safety burden is low. The description adds genuinely useful behavior: dropdown IDs are resolved to names, the default section set, and that softwares/networkports are the bulk of the payload. It doesn't cover pagination/truncation (schema does), but this is solid added 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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the core value (enriched view in one request), with no filler. Slightly dense in the second sentence but every clause carries information.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and the description covers default content, section behavior, and ID resolution. The remaining gap is the unstated relationship to the sibling glpi_get_asset and the default-sections inconsistency, but overall it is complete enough to call 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3 and the schema already documents fields/format/sections/max_items. The description adds the 'bulk payload' hint for choosing sections, but it also conflicts with the schema: the description implies softwares/networkports are not default while the schema states the default is 'devices, disks, softwares, networkports', which muddies rather than clarifies.

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 ('Enriched asset view in one request') and enumerates the default content (OS, processors, memory, disks), so an agent immediately knows what it returns. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling glpi_get_asset / glpi_list_assets, though 'enriched' implies it, so it falls short of a 5.

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?

Gives real usage context — request ['softwares'] or ['networkports'] explicitly because they dominate the payload — which helps an agent size its request. However, it never says when to choose this over glpi_get_asset or glpi_list_assets, and gives no when-not guidance, so usage is only implied.

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