qradar_get_asset

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It states this is a retrieval operation and discloses the return format (JSON string) and major content areas (interfaces, IPs, MACs, OS products, users, vulnerability count). It does not cover error cases or rate limits, but for a read-only get-by-ID tool this is solid disclosure.

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 compact and front-loaded, with a clear purpose sentence followed by concise Args and Returns sections. Every line contributes useful information and there is no filler.

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 tool has only one parameter, an output schema exists, and the description covers both the operation and the parameter semantics. It could add guidance on obtaining the asset ID via qradar_list_assets or behavior for nonexistent IDs, but those are not essential 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%, so the description must compensate. It defines asset_id as 'Unique integer ID of the asset,' adding semantic meaning beyond the schema's type and title. It lacks examples or range details, but with a single simple parameter this is adequate.

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 ('Retrieve') and a specific resource ('full details of a single asset'), and clearly identifies the lookup key as 'Asset ID.' Saying 'single asset' differentiates it from sibling qradar_list_assets, so an agent can understand this is a get-by-ID operation.

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 phrase 'by its Asset ID' makes clear that this tool is appropriate when the agent already has the asset ID and needs full details for one asset. It does not explicitly mention that qradar_list_assets should be used when the ID is unknown, but the context is clear enough for correct use.

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