get_asset

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and openWorld, so the safety profile is covered elsewhere. The description adds two genuinely useful behavioral facts: that returned metadata is untrusted data (a prompt-injection caution) and the required OAuth scope. It still omits any statement about error behavior for a nonexistent asset_id.

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, no filler, with the core action front-loaded and the caveat and scope appended compactly. Every clause carries information.

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 read tool with no output schema, the description does cover the return surface (version, storage, download availability) and injects a security note. It falls short on the include_metadata flag and asset_id expectations, leaving the 0%-covered schema to carry semantics it does not actually document.

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% and the description says nothing about either parameter. In particular, include_metadata (default true) is undocumented anywhere, so an agent cannot tell that it can suppress metadata retrieval, and the asset_id format constraint lives only in the regex pattern.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Read an asset record') and enumerates what the read returns: version, storage and download availability. That is enough to separate it from list_assets and download_asset without opening a schema, though it never names a sibling to contrast against.

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?

'Scope: assets:read' tells the agent the required permission but not when to choose this tool over siblings like list_assets or download_asset, nor any precondition (e.g. needing an ID already obtained from a list call). No when/when-not guidance is present.

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