get_data_asset_file_urls

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the prerequisite state (asset must be 'ready'), which is useful context. However, it lacks details on authentication needs, rate limits, error handling, or what the URLs look like (e.g., expiration, access controls). For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves gaps in behavioral understanding.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose in the first sentence, followed by usage guidelines in the second. Every sentence adds critical value—no wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a tool with two parameters and clear prerequisites.

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 moderate complexity (2 parameters, no annotations, but has an output schema), the description is mostly complete. It covers purpose, usage, and prerequisites well. With an output schema present, it doesn't need to explain return values. However, it could improve by addressing behavioral aspects like error cases or URL characteristics.

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 for the lack of parameter documentation. It implies the parameters ('data_asset_id' and 'file_path') by referencing 'a specific file from an internal data asset', giving basic context. However, it doesn't specify format details (e.g., path syntax, ID structure) or constraints, partially addressing the coverage gap but not fully.

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 specific action ('Generate view and download URLs') and the resource ('for a specific file from an internal data asset'), distinguishing it from siblings like 'download_and_read_a_file_from_data_asset' (which reads file content) or 'get_data_asset' (which retrieves asset metadata). It precisely defines the tool's function without redundancy.

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 provides explicit guidance on when to use this tool ('Call only when the data asset is already created and in a ready state') and when not to use it (if not ready). It names an alternative tool ('wait_until_ready') for handling unready assets, offering clear prerequisites and workflow context.

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