superops_assets_get

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It clearly notes a key behavioral limitation: SuperOps does not expose CPU, memory, or disk figures on the asset record, and it directs the agent to an alternative. This is valuable context, though it does not discuss read-only status, permissions, or rate limits.

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 tightly written sentences. The first front-loads the purpose and enumerated data, while the second cleanly handles the limitation and alternative. No redundant or filler content.

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 one-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description fully compensates by listing the returned fields and setting expectations about unavailable data. Nothing essential is missing for an agent to call and interpret the result.

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 coverage is 100%, so the lone parameter (assetId) is already fully documented in the schema. The description implies a specific asset is required but adds no format or syntax detail beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 and resource ('Get detailed information for a specific asset') and enumerates the exact data returned (hardware identity, OS, network, agent version, patch status). It clearly distinguishes from list-type siblings by specifying 'a specific asset' and explicitly routes missing CPU/memory/disk data to a different tool.

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?

Explicitly states when to use this tool (fetching detailed info for one asset) and when not to use it (CPU, memory, or disk figures), naming the alternative tool (superops_custom_query) and the specific queries needed. This gives the agent a clear decision boundary.

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