view_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 states this is a view operation and outlines the detail levels (short/medium/full) which gives some insight into the return granularity. However, it does not explicitly affirm that the operation is read-only, nor does it detail potential errors, auth requirements, or exactly what 'raw' means, leaving room for ambiguity.

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, consisting of two sentences with no fluff. The first sentence is front-loaded and clear. However, the second sentence's 'full=raw' is cryptic and relies on the schema for full definition, slightly reducing structural clarity.

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 3-parameter view tool with 100% schema coverage, the description is fairly complete in stating purpose and detail options. Nevertheless, with no output schema, it does not explain the return structure beyond the detail levels, and it omits context like that assetId should come from list_assets (which the schema does mention). The description is adequate but has clear gaps.

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 covers 100% of parameters with detailed descriptions, so a baseline of 3 is appropriate. The description adds a condensed explanation of the 'detail' enum (e.g., 'short=id+type+name') but does not meaningfully expand beyond the schema's more precise definitions. It gives no additional insight into 'assetId' or 'brandId' beyond what the schema already provides.

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's action: 'View details of a single asset by ID.' This specifies a verb (view), a resource (asset), and the scope (single by ID), which fully distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'list_assets' (list) or 'upload_asset' (create). The mention of the detail parameter further clarifies its purpose.

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 implies usage when you have a specific asset ID and need its details. However, it does not explicitly state when to choose this over alternatives (e.g., list_assets) or mention any prerequisites/exclusions. The supported detail levels offer some context but do not serve as explicit when-to-use guidance.

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