accelo_get_asset

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden and it discloses almost nothing: no error behavior for an unknown/inaccessible ID, no indication of whether this is a safe read, and no pagination or expansion behavior. It implies a read-only retrieval, which is the minimum an agent can infer from the name.

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 purpose sentence is front-loaded and wastes no words, and the arg list is terse. The Args block is somewhat redundant with the schema, but it is short enough not to bloat the definition.

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 two-parameter getter with no output schema, the essentials are present, but nothing explains the 'fields' expansion mechanism or failure modes, and with no annotations there is no safety profile to fall back on. Adequate but with visible gaps.

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 must compensate, and it does label both parameters ('id: Asset ID', 'fields: Additional fields to return'). However, it gives no format or syntax for 'fields' (comma-separated? array? field names from where?), leaving the more ambiguous parameter under-specified.

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 ('Get') and resource ('a single asset') plus the lookup key ('by ID'), which cleanly separates it from accelo_list_assets and accelo_count_assets. It stops short of explicitly naming any sibling as the alternative, so it is clear but not fully differentiated.

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?

There is no statement of when to use this tool versus accelo_list_assets or accelo_get_asset_type, nor any prerequisites such as needing an asset ID from a prior list call. Usage is only implied by the word 'single'.

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