get_asset

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It clarifies that this is a read/retrieval operation and does not perform uploads, which is useful. However, it does not mention error behavior, authentication requirements, or what happens if the asset_id does not exist, leaving some behavioral gaps.

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 short sentences with no filler. The primary purpose is front-loaded, and the clarifying note about uploads earning its place by preventing a common misuse.

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 one-parameter getter with an output schema, the description covers the essential purpose and boundary. It lacks parameter guidance and error semantics, but the tool's low complexity and existing output schema make it reasonably complete for correct 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 explain asset_id beyond the schema's title. It does not say how to obtain the asset_id, its expected format, or whether it corresponds to an upload response field. The parameter is self-explanatory by name, but the description adds no semantic value.

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 a specific verb ('Return') and names the exact resource ('metadata/public URL for an already-uploaded asset'). It also distinguishes itself from the binary upload operation by explicitly stating that uploads happen over the HTTP asset API, making the tool's scope unambiguous even among siblings.

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 clearly indicates this is for retrieving an already-uploaded asset's metadata/URL, and it explicitly routes upload behavior to a different API. It does not name alternative sibling tools or state when not to use it, but the context is sufficient for an agent to select it for retrieval tasks.

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