get_code_asset

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false), so the bar is lower, yet the description still adds real value: it discloses that notebook outputs are stripped from the returned contents, with a quantified rationale. It does not mention pagination or size limits, but the return-content disclosure is genuinely useful.

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 core purpose is front-loaded in one sentence, then Args are clearly delimited. The aside about outputs being 77% of bytes across 52 notebooks is slightly chatty but it justifies the stripping behavior rather than padding.

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?

With no output schema, the description would need to explain the return value; it characterizes the return as notebook or saved-query contents with outputs stripped. Combined with the environment scoping, an agent has enough to call it correctly, though the returned structure and error cases are not described.

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 carry parameter meaning, and it does: 'asset' is explained as either a display name (as shown in BigQuery Studio) or an asset id, and 'environment' as the configured environment to read, with the default-bypass behavior stated. Only the accepted format of environment identifiers is left implicit.

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?

Specific verb ('Return') plus precise resource ('one Colab notebook or saved query's contents') and retrieval keys ('by name or id'). An agent can immediately distinguish this single-item fetch from the sibling list_code_assets or find_code_assets_using_table without opening any schema.

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 the retrieval use case and clarifies that environment can be omitted for the default, but it never states when to prefer this over list_code_assets or find_code_assets_using_table, nor any prerequisites. Usage is inferable but not routed.

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