get_asset_details

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It transparently notes that exposure scores (ACR/AES) are only available 'if licensed', and it lists the exact types of data returned. It does not discuss permissions or error cases, but the read-only nature is implied by 'Get'.

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 that front-loads the action ('Get full detail') and then compactly lists the returned fields. Every segment adds value without redundancy or unnecessary elaboration.

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 that the tool has only one parameter, has an output schema, and is a straightforward read operation, the description adequately covers the scope and special conditions (licensing). It does not need to describe return format because the output schema is present.

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 schema offers only a bare string parameter 'asset_uuid' with 0% description coverage. The description compensates by clarifying that the UUID identifies a single asset and by specifying the detail categories returned, giving the agent a clear understanding of the parameter's purpose and expected input.

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 specifies 'Get full detail for a single asset by UUID' and enumerates the content areas (network interfaces, installed software, tags, exposure scores). This makes the tool's purpose distinct from sibling tools like list_assets, which lists assets rather than fetching one asset's full details.

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 phrase 'by UUID' establishes a clear usage context: use this tool when you have a specific asset UUID and need comprehensive details. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, but the context is sufficiently clear to guide agent selection.

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