Get Asset / 获取素材详情

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 usefully discloses the shape of the return (bilingual name, category, file path, SVG URL) in the absence of an output schema, but says nothing about behavior on a missing/invalid ID, auth needs, or whether it is a pure read.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action and kept to two mirrored sentences. The English/Chinese duplication doubles the token cost without adding new information, which is a mild waste but consistent with a bilingual tool.

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 single-parameter lookup, the description covers purpose and return contents, and the schema covers the input. The remaining gap is error/not-found behavior, which matters little for a read-only detail fetch.

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 100% and the single assetId parameter is fully documented in the schema with format examples. The description adds nothing beyond that, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 about a specific asset by its ID') and enumerates the returned fields. This clearly differentiates it from search/list siblings in practice, though it never names an alternative tool explicitly.

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 its ID' implies the precondition that the caller already has an assetId, which is usable context. However, there is no statement of when to choose this over sciglyph_search_assets or sciglyph_get_url, and no exclusions or downstream-use guidance.

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