get_asset_info

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

With no annotations, the description discloses read-only nature and return format (JSON with fields). It lacks details on error handling or behavior for invalid IDs, but covers the essential behavioral trait of being non-destructive.

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 concise with a clear structure: purpose, usage guidelines, parameter explanation, and return summary. Every sentence adds value without 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?

Given the tool's simplicity (one param, output schema exists), the description covers input, output, and usage context. It does not mention error cases, but for a read operation the essentials are present.

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?

The schema has 0% description coverage, but the description adds meaning by explaining asset_id is the UUID and where to obtain it (from search results, albums). This compensates well, though a bit more format specification could help.

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 'Get full metadata for a single asset.' and lists specific fields like EXIF, GPS, camera info, making the purpose highly clear. It also distinguishes from sibling tools by mentioning search_metadata and search_smart 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 provides clear usage context: use when needing metadata for a known asset ID. It explicitly advises against using for finding assets and names alternatives (search_metadata, search_smart), offering excellent guidance.

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