get_tenable_cloud_asset

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. 'Get details' weakly implies a read-only operation, but nothing states permissions/auth requirements, rate limiting, or behavior when the UUID is unknown or the asset is inaccessible. An output schema exists, so return shaping is partly covered, but the safety/behavior profile is not.

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 tight sentence with no wasted words and the purpose front-loaded. It is efficient, though the brevity is part of why other dimensions are under-specified.

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 single-UUID lookup with an existing output schema, the essentials are thin but workable. Missing details such as error behavior for invalid/absent UUIDs and the source of the UUID keep it at minimum-viable completeness.

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% and the single required parameter asset_uuid has no documentation in either schema or description. The description's mention of 'asset' only weakly ties to the parameter; it adds no format, source, or validity guidance for the UUID.

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?

States a specific verb (Get) and resource (Tenable Vulnerability Management asset), and 'details' implies single-entity retrieval, implicitly distinguishing it from the sibling list_tenable_cloud_assets. It does not, however, explicitly name that sibling or clarify scope boundaries.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no mention of prerequisites or prerequisites like owning a valid asset_uuid, and no named alternative (e.g., list_tenable_cloud_assets for enumeration). The agent must infer usage entirely from the name.

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