get_asset_info

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

With no annotations present, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It clearly states 'Read-only', discloses that with_notes incurs 'One extra request', and describes what the returned notes object contains. It does not discuss auth requirements or failure behavior, but for a simple metadata retrieval tool this is reasonably 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?

The description is front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by clear usage guidance, parameter explanations, and return-value summary. Every sentence earns its place, and the format with Args and Returns sections makes it easy for an agent to parse.

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 two-parameter, single-asset metadata lookup, this description covers the key context: when to use it, how to obtain asset_id, the optional with_notes behavior, cost implications, and the shape of the response. The presence of an output schema means the return-value summary in the description is sufficient.

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 compensate. It explains both parameters: asset_id is 'The asset's UUID (from search results, album listings, or list_assets)' and with_notes is described as including notes at the cost of one extra request. This adds meaningful guidance beyond the schema's bare type definitions, though it does not enumerate the exact notes structure.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Get full metadata for a single asset.' It distinguishes the tool from its siblings by explicitly naming the metadata types (EXIF, GPS, camera info, file properties) and contrasting with search_metadata and search_smart, which are for finding assets.

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 explicitly states when to use this tool ('Use this when you need EXIF details, GPS coordinates, camera info, or file properties for a known asset ID') and provides clear alternatives ('For finding assets, use search_metadata or search_smart instead'). It also signals the read-only nature, helping the agent avoid unsafe or irrelevant choices.

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