describe_asm

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses the success return value (JSON string) and failure behavior (error object with list of valid names), which is helpful and goes beyond the schema. It does not mention permissions or side effects, but for a read-only describe operation this is acceptable, so 4.

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 concise and well-structured, with a clear purpose sentence followed by Args and Returns sections. Every part adds value, and it fits in a small space, so 5.

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?

The description is complete for the tool's complexity: it states the purpose, explains the parameter, and explicitly specifies success and failure return formats. The presence of an output schema is not strictly necessary because the returns are described, and the tool is simple, so 5.

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 provides only a type and requirement for model_name with no description. The description's Args section adds semantic meaning by labeling it as 'the key identifying the ASM model' and providing an example, which compensates for the 0% schema coverage, so 4.

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 'Return the metadata for a specific ASM model by name,' using a specific verb and resource. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like fetch_asm_document or list_asms, so it earns a 4 rather than 5.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description only explains what it does, not when to choose it over siblings like fetch_asm_document or list_asms, so it scores 2.

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