Read one asset

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries full disclosure. It reveals that kind=map triggers several API calls to assemble a hierarchy, which is an important behavioral trait. It also transparently explains what is returned for each kind, giving the agent a complete picture of the tool's behavior.

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 statement, but the second sentence is long and information-dense. However, every detail is valuable and not redundant with the schema. It is concise overall, but slightly dense.

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 read tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description fully explains what will be returned for each kind, notes the cost of map assembly, and provides an alternative for articles. This is sufficient for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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 already describes both parameters with 100% coverage, but the description adds significant meaning to the 'kind' parameter by explaining the specific return shape for each enum value (map, notebook, other). This goes beyond the schema's simple 'Asset type' label, though it adds nothing for 'id'.

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 'Read a single asset in full' with a specific verb and resource. It then details what 'full' means for each kind, distinguishing map and notebook from other asset types, and explicitly contrasts with get_article, so the purpose is unambiguous and differentiated from 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?

It provides explicit usage context: for maps and notebooks, you get the full hierarchy; for other kinds, just the entity. It also directly tells the agent to use get_article for articles, which is an explicit alternative. This is clear guidance on when to use this tool vs. alternatives.

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