get_asset_notes

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It explicitly states the operation is read-only, notes the ordering ('newest last'), and defines the empty-list behavior when the asset was never annotated.

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 key purpose and behavior are front-loaded in the first sentence, followed by compact Args and Returns sections. Every sentence earns its place with no redundant filler.

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 one-parameter read-only tool, the description covers the input, the full return shape, ordering, and edge case behavior. Nothing essential is missing for an agent to select and invoke it correctly.

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 input schema gives no description for asset_id, so the description must compensate. It explains that asset_id identifies 'the asset to read,' which is sufficient for a simple string parameter, though it adds no further constraints or format details.

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 states a specific action ('get'), a specific resource ('notes on one asset'), and the content of those notes (review verdicts and recorded actions). This distinguishes it from the plural sibling get_assets_notes and other note-related tools.

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 clearly scopes the tool to a single asset ('one asset') and labels it read-only, so an agent can infer when to use it. It does not explicitly name alternatives or say when not to use it, but the singular scope is unambiguous.

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