Get Assets

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the note that results may be truncated by the limit parameter, which is useful context beyond annotations. However, it does not elaborate on the truncation behavior (e.g., whether pagination exists) or other behavioral aspects like response size.

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, dense sentence that front-loads the action and resource, lists key filters, and notes the limit behavior. No filler or redundancy.

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 simplicity (one nested request parameter) and the presence of an output schema, the description is largely complete. It covers the resource, filters, and limit truncation. It does not mention error cases or default behavior when no filters are applied, but these are minor gaps for a read-only 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?

Schema coverage is 100% (the request object is described and all fields have types/defaults), but individual properties lack descriptive text. The tool description explicitly names the filter fields (asset_id, pool_participant_id, operating_status, asset_type) and explains their role as optional filters, adding semantic meaning beyond the raw schema. The limit parameter's truncation effect is also explained.

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 the tool returns AESO market asset registry records and enumerates the specific optional filters (asset ID, pool participant, operating status, asset type). This makes the purpose unambiguous and distinguishes it from sibling tools that handle other market data like outages or prices.

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 explains what the tool does but provides no explicit guidance on when to use it versus alternatives, nor any exclusions. The purpose is reasonably implied by the name and context, but with many sibling get_* tools, a brief 'use this for asset registry queries' would improve clarity.

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