get_asset

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full load; it does convey that this is a retrieval of many derived artifacts (lineage, QC, Critic, graph relations), which is genuinely useful behavioral context. It stops short of stating read-only guarantees, behavior for a missing/invalid asset, or response shape, so gaps remain.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; every listed item describes a distinct part of the returned payload.

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?

The enumerated payload list effectively substitutes for the missing output schema. However, with no annotations and 0% schema coverage, the absence of any statement about the project scoping parameter or error behavior leaves the definition only minimally complete for a lookup tool.

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 — but it says nothing about either parameter. The 'project' parameter (defaulting to 'default') is entirely unaddressed, leaving scope ambiguity about which project an asset_id is resolved in.

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?

Specific verb ('Get') plus resource ('a single asset'), with an enumeration of what is retrieved: metadata, prompt lineage, QC report, Critic report, parents, children. The 'single asset' scoping implicitly separates it from list_assets, though no sibling is named.

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?

Usage is only implied: reach for this when you need the detailed view of one asset rather than a listing. It never states when to prefer list_assets or related tools (rate_asset, find_placeholders), nor any prerequisite such as needing a valid asset_id first.

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