Fetch asset

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the agent knows this operation is safe and non-mutating. The description adds the behavioral detail that it returns two URL forms (clickable and download), which is helpful. However, it doesn't mention potential failure modes (e.g., invalid reference, auth) or any rate limits. Given the low annotation bar, a 3 is appropriate.

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?

A single, information-dense sentence that leads with the core purpose and specifies input constraints. There is zero fluff; every part of the sentence earns its place. The structure is exemplary for a simple utility tool.

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 is simple (2 params, 1 required) and the description fully explains the output (both URL types). Since there is no output schema, the description carries the responsibility for return values, and it does so clearly. It also defines the accepted input format, so an agent has everything needed to invoke it correctly. Complete for its complexity.

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 100%, both 'url' and 'name' are described in the schema. The tool description doesn't add parameter-specific detail beyond what the schema provides (e.g., no format examples or edge cases). Since the schema carries the full load, baseline 3 is correct.

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 verb ('Resolve'), the resource ('a generated asset reference'), and the exact outcome (clickable absolute URL + download URL). It even specifies the accepted input forms (/generated/ path or any URL), making the purpose unambiguous. No sibling tool performs this action, so no differentiation is needed.

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 the use case: whenever an agent has an asset reference that needs to be converted to usable URLs. It doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or list alternatives, but given the absence of any similar sibling tool, this is clear context. The lack of exclusions is acceptable because there are no obvious competing tools.

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