Get asset

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds what the payload contains (type, filename, favorite/public flags, share link, originating job), which is valuable given there is no output schema. It does not disclose error behavior when the ID is unknown or any permission requirements.

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 front-loaded sentence with the resource named first and return fields parenthesized; nothing is redundant. The parenthetical field list is dense but readable.

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 one-parameter read tool with safety annotations, the main gaps are the assetId format and failure behavior. The enumeration of returned fields partially compensates for the absent output schema, but the input side remains undocumented.

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% for the single required parameter assetId, so the description bears full responsibility — and it provides no information about the identifier's format (UUID, job-derived, slug) or where an agent obtains one. 'One asset' only weakly implies an identifying key.

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 resource and scope ('Metadata for one asset') and enumerates the returned fields, which distinguishes it from vivid_list_assets (many assets) and vivid_download_asset (binary content). It is a noun phrase rather than a verb, but the retrieval intent is unambiguous.

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 and no named alternative. The agent must infer that this is the single-asset lookup versus vivid_list_assets purely from the word 'one'. No prerequisites, no mention of needing an existing assetId.

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