background_assets_get_instance

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it discloses nothing: no auth requirements, no error/404 behavior, no statement about sparse fieldsets or relation expansion semantics. It effectively conveys only that a GET occurs, which the name already implies.

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?

It is short and front-loaded, but the parenthetical '(GET /v1/backgroundAssets/{id})' is a literal duplicate of the preceding text and earns no place. What remains after removing the redundancy is a bare endpoint string.

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?

A five-parameter retrieval tool with no annotations and no output schema should at least say what is returned or how 'include'/'fields_*' shape the response. The description is silent on all of this, leaving the agent to infer everything from the schema alone.

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 itself documents id, include, and the three fields_* parameters with their enum values. The description adds zero parameter meaning beyond the schema, which meets the baseline 3 for high-coverage schemas but no more.

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 text 'GET /v1/backgroundAssets/{id}' does identify a specific verb (GET) and resource path with an id placeholder, so an agent can infer this fetches a single background asset. However, the parenthetical repeats the exact same string verbatim, adding no distinguishing detail against siblings like background_assets_versions_get_instance or background_assets_create_instance.

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 when-to-use guidance, no mention of prerequisites, and no routing to alternatives such as the relationship endpoints (background_assets_versions_get_to_many_relationship). The REST path implies a single-resource fetch but nothing states the conditions under which this tool is the right choice.

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