alga_assets_get

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered structurally. The description adds only the implication that this returns a richer record than list/search results ("full details"); it says nothing about what happens with an unknown or malformed ID, though the schema's pattern/maxLength hints at ID format constraints.

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?

Two short sentences with no filler: the action is stated first, the workflow hint second. Every clause earns its place and there is no redundancy.

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 single-parameter read-only getter with no output schema, the definition covers what it does, how to obtain the input, and that the response is more detailed than a list entry. The remaining gap is error/not-found behavior, which is minor at this complexity.

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%, but there is only one parameter and the schema itself carries the type, pattern, length bounds and required flag. The description contributes only that the ID identifies an asset, which is minimal but appropriate for a single-parameter lookup; nothing is added about where the ID comes from beyond the sequencing hint.

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?

"Get one asset by ID" gives a specific verb (get), a specific resource (asset), and a cardinality/selector (one, by ID), which cleanly separates it from the list and search siblings whose names appear in context. It stops short of naming those siblings explicitly, so it is clear but not maximally 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?

"Use after a list or search to see full details" gives concrete sequencing guidance: obtain an ID from a listing/search, then call this for detail. It implies the alternatives (list/search) rather than naming them and states no exclusions, so it is clear context without full routing rules.

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