get_asset_metadata

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 mentions 'full provenance' and 'workflow snapshot,' implying read-only metadata retrieval. However, it does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only, nor does it disclose any side effects, authentication needs, or rate limits. The description adds basic context but could be more explicit.

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?

The description consists of two concise sentences: the first states the purpose, and the second gives usage guidance. Every word serves a purpose, and the information is front-loaded. No extraneous 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?

Given the tool's low complexity (1 parameter, no output schema, no nested objects), the description adequately covers purpose and usage. While it does not elaborate on the return format, mentioning 'full provenance including the workflow snapshot' provides enough context for an agent to understand the output. It is complete for a tool of this simplicity.

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 input schema has one required parameter (asset_id) with a description explaining its source. Since schema description coverage is 100%, the parameter is well-documented there. The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 clearly states 'Get full provenance for a registered asset including the workflow snapshot that produced it,' which is a specific verb+resource combination. It distinguishes the tool from siblings like list_assets (which lists assets) and get_workflow (which retrieves a workflow) by focusing on provenance.

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 explicitly says 'Use this to inspect the parameters that generated an image before calling regenerate with overrides,' providing a clear use case and linking to a subsequent action. However, it does not explicitly exclude other use cases or compare to alternatives, though the context is sufficient.

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