get_asset

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the agent knows it's safe. The description adds that the tool accepts partial name (case-insensitive). It could further clarify behavior on multiple matches or no match, but overall sufficiently transparent.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with purpose and usage boundaries. Every sentence adds value with no redundancy.

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 simple read tool with two parameters and no output schema, the description covers purpose, usage boundaries, and parameter behavior. It could mention response handling for multiple or missing matches, but overall fairly complete given the tool's simplicity.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds context that the name parameter is for when ID is unknown, but this is implicit from the parameter descriptions. No additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides.

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 explicitly states 'view details of a specific cloud asset', clearly identifying the verb and resource. It distinguishes from siblings by warning against using for listing (list_assets) or cost analysis (run_query).

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?

It provides explicit when-to-use ('when the user wants to view details') and when-not-to-use ('Do NOT use for listing assets or cost analysis'), naming alternatives. However, it lacks guidance on handling partial name matches that return multiple assets.

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