get_assets

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds two useful behaviors ('stored drafts' and 'newest version first'), but it does not state whether the operation is read-only, how filtering by asset_type works, what happens when no drafts exist, or any other safety/response characteristics.

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 is a single compact sentence with no filler or redundancy. However, its brevity sacrifices clarity and action orientation, so it is efficient in form but not fully effective in 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?

An output schema exists, so return values do not need explanation, but the description lacks usage guidance, parameter semantics, and meaningful behavioral context for a tool among many asset/match siblings. This is not enough for confident selection and invocation.

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 0%, and the description does not compensate. It does not mention finding_id or asset_type by name, nor does it explain their roles or the effect of the optional asset_type filter. The vague 'match' hint is insufficient for correct parameter usage.

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 identifies the resource ('stored drafts for a match') and an ordering behavior ('newest version first'), but it is a noun phrase rather than an explicit action statement (e.g., 'Retrieves...'), so it lacks a clear verb. It also does not differentiate itself from siblings like get_asset_file or get_match.

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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_match or get_asset_file. The phrase 'for a match' hints at a relationship to finding_id, but there is no explicit context, prerequisites, or exclusions.

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