read_project_asset

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint annotation, the description discloses a key behavioral trait: the tool rejects direct calls unless run_skill has been invoked. It also implies bounded content via 'bounded text content,' adding context about limits. No contradiction with annotations.

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 two sentences long, front-loaded with the main purpose, and each sentence adds value. 'Call run_skill first' and the rejection note are slightly redundant but not excessive, keeping it efficient.

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 has 4 parameters, no output schema, and a read-only annotation, the description covers the crucial prerequisite (run_skill) and the read scope. It does not explain return values or pagination details, but the description is adequate for a bounded read operation with a known prerequisite.

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 only 25% (assetId has a description, but limit, offset, and includeContent do not). The description partially compensates by mentioning 'metadata or bounded text content,' which hints at includeContent and limit/offset, but it does not explicitly map parameters or explain how offset/limit work.

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 what the tool does: 'Read metadata or bounded text content from one current-project asset.' It specifies the verb (read), the resource (project asset), and the scope (one current-project asset), which distinguishes it from siblings like search_project_assets (searching) and write_free_doc (writing).

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 gives explicit usage context: 'Call run_skill first' and notes that direct calls are rejected without the active skill grant/run descriptor. This is clear prerequisite guidance, though it does not explicitly compare with alternatives or state when not to use the tool.

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