get_asset

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already tells the agent this is a safe, non-mutating read, so the bar is lower. The description does add genuine value by disclosing what the document contains (attachments, attributes, relationships), but says nothing about pagination, size, error behavior, or what happens when the asset is missing.

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?

One short, front-loaded sentence with no filler, and the parenthetical efficiently lists the payload sections. It is slightly clipped to the point of being a fragment, but nothing is wasted.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description carries the burden of explaining the return shape, and it only gestures at it with three field names. Combined with two required, entirely undocumented parameters, the definition is under-specified for a tool an agent must call with correct IDs.

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 both parameters (project_id, asset_id) are required but undocumented in the schema. The description never mentions either parameter, so it does not compensate for the coverage gap at all — the agent must guess that both are plain identifiers.

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 names the resource and the kind of payload ('Full asset metadata document'), but it is a bare noun phrase with no verb, so the agent must infer that this is a retrieval operation. It also never distinguishes itself from the sibling list_assets or the other asset tools, leaving the single-vs-collection distinction implicit.

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 explicit when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no named alternative. The only usable signal is the implied 'get one asset' reading versus list_assets, which the agent has to derive on its own.

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