Get one OT asset

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of explaining behavior. It discloses return fields, special null semantics for 'backplane', the distinction between backplane IDs and asset IDs, and the special format of imported tags. It also clarifies relationships with other tools, providing substantial behavior beyond a simple 'returns asset'.

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?

Description is front-loaded with the main purpose, then efficiently adds critical details in subsequent sentences. Each sentence earns its place: the backplane nuance, tag format, and invocations context are all valuable. No fluff or repetition.

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?

Given the output schema exists, the description need not enumerate return values, yet it still explains non-obvious aspects like backplane nullness and project-import tags. It also positions the tool within a workflow (after query_assets, before get_asset_vulnerabilities), making it contextually complete.

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?

The schema has no descriptions (0% coverage), and the description adds usage context by saying the id comes from query_assets. However, it does not clarify the exact format or type beyond 'id', leaving some ambiguity. That said, for a single simple parameter, the provided guidance is sufficient to invoke the tool correctly.

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?

The description begins with a specific verb and resource: 'Returns the per-asset bundle for one OT asset by id', followed by a detailed list of included fields. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like query_assets (which lists assets) and get_asset_vulnerabilities (which fetches vulnerabilities).

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 description states when to use the tool: 'Call after query_assets returns an id of interest.' It also directs when NOT to use it for vulnerabilities: 'For the asset's open vulnerabilities call get_asset_vulnerabilities separately.' This is explicit, actionable guidance with alternatives.

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