get_asset_info

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It implies a read-only operation ('get') but does not disclose any behavior such as error handling, return format, or what constitutes 'detailed information'. The description adds minimal transparency beyond the basic action.

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, concise sentence that is front-loaded with the action and resource. Every word contributes to the meaning, with no unnecessary filler.

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 lacks an output schema, yet the description does not describe what information is returned. It only says 'detailed information', which is vague and incomplete for an agent attempting to use the tool effectively. No error cases or expected behavior are mentioned.

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%, so the description must compensate for the parameter 'asset_key'. It does not explain the format, allowed values, or how to obtain a valid key. The parameter name is somewhat self-explanatory, but no additional semantics are provided.

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's function: 'Get detailed information about a specific asset.' It uses a specific verb (get), a resource (asset), and a scope (specific asset), which distinguishes it from the sibling tool 'list_assets' that lists assets generally.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention exclusions or when to prefer this over 'list_assets' or 'get_run_info'. The usage context is only implied by the tool's name and purpose.

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