asana_get_portfolio

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds context beyond the annotations by revealing the optional behavior of include_items (that it also returns member projects/portfolios when true). It does not add deeper details like error handling or edge cases, but it does not contradict any annotation.

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, compact sentence containing the essential verb, resource, and a key optional behavior. It is front-loaded and directly actionable, with no filler or repeated structural details. The phrase 'Fetch one portfolio' immediately sets the domain, and the include_items note provides added value without bloating the text.

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 is a simple read-only fetch operation with three parameters (all schema-documented) and no output schema, the description covers the primary action and the most relevant optional flag. The user does not need extra detail on return format since no output schema is provided, but the description its still sufficient for an agent to invoke correctly. The lack of explicit error handling or alternative hints is minor.

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 has 100% description coverage for all parameters: portfolio_gid, include_items, and opt_fields each already have descriptive text. The main description restates include_items's effect but does not add novel semantics beyond that. Per the rubric, a baseline of 3 is appropriate given schema coverage is high (>80%). The description does not prevent misunderstanding.

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 states a specific verb and resource ('Fetch one portfolio'), making the core purpose clear. It is distinguishable from siblings like asana_list_portfolios (which lists) and asana_get_project (different resource type), although it does not name these alternatives explicitly. The mention of include_items for pulling member projects/portfolios adds specificity.

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 a single portfolio by GID) and provides guidance on the include_items parameter to optionally get nested items. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over list_portfolios or other get-style tools, nor does it offer exclusion criteria. The context is clear enough for an agent to infer, but formal alternatives are not mentioned.

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