get_asset_details

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It details the return fields: assetKey, description, groupName, op name, isObservable, isPartitioned, partitionDefinition, dependencyKeys, dependedByKeys, and latest materialization. This implies a read-only operation with no destructive effects. However, it does not explicitly state that the tool is read-only or mention any authorization requirements, which would have earned a 5.

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 and well-structured. It begins with a clear single-sentence summary, lists the return fields in a bullet-like format, and ends with usage guidance. Every sentence adds value without redundancy, making it easy for an AI agent to parse quickly.

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?

The tool has moderate complexity (2 parameters, 1 required) and an output schema (not shown but indicated). The description provides all necessary information: purpose, parameter details, comprehensive return fields, and usage context with sibling differentiation. There are no significant gaps given the available context signals.

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 the required 'asset_keys' parameter as 'list of asset name strings (e.g. ['my_extract', 'my_load'])', which adds meaning beyond the schema type. The optional 'env' parameter is not explained, but it is less critical as it has a default of null. The description adds value for the key parameter, earning a 4.

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 starts with 'Get detailed metadata for one or more assets: description, lineage, and partitions,' which clearly states the action (Get), resource (assets), and specific data fields (description, lineage, partitions). This distinguishes it from siblings like search_assets (used for finding assets by name) and get_asset_health (which focuses on health status).

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 includes 'When to use: to understand an asset's lineage... Use search_assets first if you don't know the exact key.' This provides clear guidance on appropriate use cases and directs users to an alternative tool when the asset key is unknown, which is highly helpful for an AI agent.

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