app_asset_libraries_get_instance

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 and supplies almost none. The 'GET' verb implies a read-only operation, which is the sole behavioral signal, but there is no mention of authentication requirements, error behavior for a missing id, or what the response contains.

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 text is short but entirely redundant, repeating the same route twice in a parenthetical with zero informational gain. Brevity here reflects under-specification rather than disciplined conciseness.

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 annotations and no output schema, the description is the only source of behavioral context, and it fails to explain return shape, sparseness via the fields parameter, or error conditions. For a two-parameter retrieval endpoint it is materially incomplete.

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%, so the schema already documents both 'id' and 'fields_appAssetLibraries' (including the enum values images/videos). The description adds nothing beyond echoing the path parameter, so the baseline 3 for a fully documented schema is appropriate.

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 is just the HTTP route repeated twice ("GET /v1/appAssetLibraries/{id} (GET /v1/appAssetLibraries/{id})"), which restates the tool name rather than describing the operation in words. An agent can infer 'fetch one app asset library' from the name and path, but the description itself adds no explanatory content and does nothing to distinguish it from siblings like app_asset_libraries_images_get_to_many_related.

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?

There is no statement of when to use this tool versus alternatives such as apps_asset_library_get_to_one_relationship or app_asset_library_images_get_instance. The only implicit cue is the '{id}' path template, which hints at single-resource retrieval but gives no conditional guidance.

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