xero_get_asset

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

Annotation Contradiction: readOnlyHint=true and the schema's effect const 'read' conflict with the parameter note 'approval_ref: Approved platform task UUID when resuming a write', which implies write-resumption behavior for a read-only tool. The description adds routing context but does not explain what happens on invocation, what response is returned, or how governed authority affects the call. This contradiction makes the behavioral model confusing and unreliable.

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 organized with a clear Args block and each line is short, so it is not verbose. However, the opening sentence redundantly restates the tool name, and several parameter lines are boilerplate that do not add operational insight. It is structured and reasonably sized, but some content is 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?

For a connector operation with 7 parameters and 0% schema description coverage, the description is incomplete because it never specifies what must be placed inside 'arguments' to identify the asset. It also leaves the approval_ref write-resumption note unexplained in a read-only context. An agent cannot reliably construct a correct call from this definition alone.

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 0%, so the description carries the full burden for parameter semantics, but it only supplies generic labels. 'arguments: JSON string of arguments for the connector operation' is a tautology and does not reveal required keys such as an asset identifier. Infrastructure parameters like project_id are explained, but the operation-specific argument contract is missing.

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 opens with a tautology, 'Xero connector operation `get_asset`', and never states what the operation actually does, such as retrieving an asset by ID. The rest of the text covers routing and parameter mechanics, not the tool's function. It does not behaviorally distinguish itself from sibling tools like xero_list_assets or xero_get_attachment.

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 provides no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. 'Routes only through the exact project/account governed connector authority' is a routing constraint, not a usage criterion, and no alternative tools are referenced. The parameter notes describe invocation mechanics rather than selection context.

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