getAssetMetadata

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Get asset metadata' implies a read-only operation but doesn't specify permissions required, rate limits, error conditions, or what format the metadata returns (e.g., JSON, structured data). This leaves critical behavioral traits undocumented for a tool with no output schema.

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 extremely concise with just three words, which is front-loaded and wastes no space. However, this conciseness comes at the cost of being under-specified—it's too brief to be helpful, though it's structurally simple and direct.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (a read operation with one parameter), lack of annotations, 0% schema coverage, and no output schema, the description is completely inadequate. It doesn't explain what 'asset metadata' includes, how to use the parameter, or what the tool returns, leaving the agent with insufficient context to 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, meaning the parameter 'assetPath' is undocumented in the schema. The description adds no information about this parameter—it doesn't explain what 'assetPath' represents, its format (e.g., file path, URL, identifier), or examples. With one required parameter and no schema details, the description fails to compensate for the coverage gap.

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 'Get asset metadata' is a tautology that restates the tool name 'getAssetMetadata' without adding meaningful context. It specifies the verb 'get' and resource 'asset metadata', but doesn't explain what constitutes 'asset metadata' or how it differs from similar tools like 'getNodeContent' or 'getPageContent' among the siblings.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With siblings like 'getNodeContent', 'getPageContent', and 'getAllTextContent', there's no indication of whether this tool is for files, pages, or other assets, or what specific metadata it retrieves compared to other content-fetching tools.

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