get_asset

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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It states the tool 'retrieves details' and returns a 'markdown-formatted description', implying a read-only operation with a defined output format, but does not disclose potential errors or permissions.

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 opening sentence is redundant ('Get details about a specific asset' and 'This tool retrieves details about a specific asset'). The Args/Returns structure is efficient but the repetition could be removed.

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?

For a simple getter with one parameter and an output schema, the description covers the action, the parameter meaning, and the return format. It is slightly thin on error behavior, but adequate for a straightforward retrieval tool.

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 no descriptions for 'id' (0% coverage). The description compensates by explaining 'id: ID of the asset to retrieve' and also documents a 'ctx' argument, though that is not in the schema. This adds meaningful semantics for the only required parameter.

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 uses the specific verb 'Get' and identifies the resource as 'a specific asset', clearly distinguishing from list_assets and other get_* tools in the sibling set.

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 provided on when to use this tool over alternatives such as list_assets, nor does it mention any prerequisites or exclusion scenarios.

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