get_bookmark_asset

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility for disclosing behavioral traits. It only states 'Get', implying a read operation, but does not mention error handling, authentication requirements, or what happens if the asset is not found. It does not add any behavioral context beyond the tool's name.

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 a single sentence of six words, with no fluff or repetition. It is front-loaded and easy to parse. However, it may be overly sparse for a tool with two required IDs, but conciseness itself is optimal.

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 a simple get-by-ID retrieval, and the output schema exists, so return values need not be described. However, the description fails to explain the relationship between bookmark_id and asset_id, and provides no usage distinctions from sibling tools. Given the context signals and schema, the description is minimally sufficient but has clear gaps.

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 input schema covers both parameters with descriptions (100% coverage), so the description needs to add little. However, it could have clarified the role of each ID or how they relate, especially since the description says 'by ID' without specifying which. The current description adds no semantic value beyond the schema.

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 uses the specific verb 'Get' with the resource 'bookmark asset', clearly identifying a single-item retrieval operation. It indicates specificity ('specific', 'by ID') which distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_bookmark_assets (plural). However, the presence of two IDs ('bookmark_id' and 'asset_id') is not clarified, and no sibling tool is explicitly named.

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 over alternatives such as get_bookmark_assets or get_bookmark. It does not state prerequisites (e.g., needing both bookmark_id and asset_id) or scenarios where this tool is appropriate. The only context is the verb 'Get', which is insufficient.

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