app_asset_library_images_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 it supplies none. Nothing is said about whether 'include' triggers extra fetching, whether the call requires authentication, or how the single resource read behaves.

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 it is a duplicated placeholder rather than a concise statement: the identical path appears twice in parentheses. There is no front-loaded explanation of behavior, so brevity here reflects under-specification, not efficiency.

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 5-parameter read tool with no annotations and no output schema, an agent needs at least a sentence on what the instance represents and how the include/fields parameters shape the response. The description provides none of that.

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 every parameter (id, include, limit_placements, and the two fields_* filters) is documented in the schema itself, which sets the baseline at 3. The description adds nothing on top, but the schema already carries the semantics.

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 raw HTTP path repeated twice: 'GET /v1/appAssetLibraryImages/{id} (GET /v1/appAssetLibraryImages/{id})'. It technically names a verb and resource, but only by restating what the tool name (app_asset_library_images_get_instance) already encodes, with no natural-language statement such as 'fetch a single asset-library image by id'. It gives an agent no basis for distinguishing it from siblings like app_asset_library_images_placements_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 guidance of any kind: no statement of when to use this endpoint versus the collection, placements, or video variants, and no mention of required inputs or prerequisites. The agent is left to infer everything from the path alone.

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