get_assistant_texml

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It uses 'Get' to imply a read-only operation, but it does not disclose potential error conditions, permission requirements, rate limits, or any side effects. The return type is mentioned, but other behavioral aspects are absent.

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 very concise and front-loaded, with the first sentence stating exactly what the tool does. It includes clearly structured Args and Returns sections that are easy to parse, with no redundant or unrelated 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 simple tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description adequately covers purpose, argument, and return type. It could be improved by explaining what TEXML is or mentioning error handling, but given the low complexity, the description is largely complete.

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 already provides full coverage for the single parameter, describing it as 'Assistant ID'. The description's Args section merely repeats this exact information, adding no additional semantic value such as format, constraints, or usage examples. Since schema coverage is 100%, the baseline of 3 applies.

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 clearly states the action ('Get') and the specific resource ('assistant's TEXML') along with the identifying input ('by ID'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_assistant, which would return the full assistant object rather than its TEXML content.

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 implies usage when you need the TEXML content for an assistant, but it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over alternatives like get_assistant, nor does it mention any exclusions or prerequisites. The guidance is minimal but not misleading.

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