get_asset_specs

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

No annotations provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses the tool returns specs but omits behavioral traits like idempotency, side effects (none expected), or authentication requirements. It is adequate but minimal.

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?

Single sentence, directly to the point, front-loaded with the key action and result. No wasted words.

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?

No output schema, so the description helpfully lists the kinds of specs returned (dimensions, file size, etc.). It covers the core functionality but could add more about response structure or any limitations (e.g., only returns for supported combinations).

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 coverage is 0%, and the description does not add meaning to the enum values for 'type' or 'platform'. It mentions 'given asset type and platform combination' but does not list or explain the accepted values, leaving the agent without needed context.

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 the tool retrieves platform-specific asset specs (dimensions, file size, aspect ratio, duration limits) for a given asset type and platform combination, differentiating it from sibling tools like get_asset_library or list_asset_categories.

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 the tool is used to look up specs for a type/platform combination but offers no explicit guidance on when to use it versus alternatives or when not to use it.

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