get_asset_metadata

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

With no annotations, description carries burden. It mentions return content (provenance, workflow snapshot) but does not disclose read-only nature, prerequisites, or potential side effects. Adequate for a simple retrieval tool.

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 sentences, front-loaded with purpose and use case. No redundant information. Every sentence adds value.

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?

No output schema, so description must explain return. It mentions 'provenance' and 'workflow snapshot' but lacks detail on structure. Use case guidance compensates partially. Adequate for a metadata retrieval tool with simple return.

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% with parameter description 'Asset id returned by list_assets or job completion'. Description adds no extra meaning beyond schema, so baseline 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?

Clearly states verb 'Get', resource 'full provenance for a registered asset', and includes specific content 'workflow snapshot'. Distinguishes from sibling tools like list_assets and get_image by specifying provenance details.

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 says when to use: 'before calling regenerate with overrides'. Provides a concrete use case for inspecting parameters. Does not list alternatives explicitly but context is clear.

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