get_asset

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

The annotation readOnlyHint: true already signals that this tool is a read-only operation. The description adds no further behavioral context, such as what happens if the ID is invalid, or any side effects. For a simple read operation, this is minimally sufficient but lacks depth.

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 extremely concise: a single sentence with fewer than 10 words. Every word is necessary, and there is no redundancy or 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?

For a simple retrieval tool with one parameter and a readOnly annotation, the description covers the basic purpose. However, it omits information about return format, error handling, or authentication requirements, which could be valuable for an agent invoking the 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?

The input schema has one parameter (asset_id) with no description. The tool description does not explain what the asset_id represents or how to obtain it. With 0% schema description coverage, the description fails to compensate, leaving the agent without semantic context for the parameter.

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 explicitly states 'Get a Planhat asset by ID', clearly indicating the action (get) and the resource (asset). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_assets (which retrieves multiple) and create/delete/update operations.

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 does not provide guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like list_assets or other get_* tools. While it is implied that one would use it when they have a specific asset ID, there is no explicit statement about usage context or exclusions.

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