Get IT Glue Flexible Asset

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=true, and idempotentHint=true, covering safety and idempotency. The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond this, mentioning the return includes 'all trait values' but not details like error handling, rate limits, or authentication needs. It does not contradict annotations.

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, followed by brief parameter and return notes. It avoids redundancy, but the 'Args' and 'Returns' sections could be more integrated into a single narrative flow. Overall, it is efficient with minimal waste.

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 low complexity (simple retrieval), rich annotations, and 100% schema coverage, the description is mostly complete. It lacks an output schema but describes the return content. However, it could better address sibling tool differentiation and provide more behavioral context to fully compensate for the missing output schema.

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 100%, with clear descriptions for all parameters (id, include, response_format). The description adds no additional semantic details beyond what the schema provides, such as examples or usage tips for 'include' or 'response_format'. Baseline 3 is appropriate given the schema's completeness.

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 verb 'Get' and resource 'a single flexible asset by ID', distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'itglue_list_flexible_assets' (which retrieves multiple) and 'itglue_create_flexible_asset' (which creates). It specifies the singular nature and ID requirement, making the purpose unambiguous.

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 needing a specific flexible asset by ID, but does not explicitly state when to use this versus alternatives like 'itglue_list_flexible_assets' for multiple assets or 'itglue_get_flexible_asset_type' for asset types. No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned, leaving some ambiguity.

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