Get a media asset

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

Annotations already declare the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, non-open-world), and the description adds genuine value on top by enumerating the returned fields, including 'processing state,' which hints the asset may not be immediately usable. It still omits permissions requirements and any behavior when the asset is missing or mid-processing.

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 that names the action first and the returned payload second, with no filler. It is appropriately sized for a one-parameter read tool.

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, non-destructive read of a single record with annotations covering safety and no output schema, listing the returned fields largely covers what an agent needs. The remaining gap is how to acquire a valid assetId, which is not addressed anywhere in the definition.

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?

There is one required parameter, assetId, and schema description coverage is 0%, so the schema provides no format or sourcing detail. The description does not compensate — it says nothing about what an assetId looks like or where to obtain it, leaving the single parameter effectively undocumented.

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?

States a specific verb (Fetch) and resource (one media asset) and enumerates what the asset record contains: type, dimensions, processing state, thumbnail, and reference count. The word 'one' implicitly separates it from the sibling list_media, but no sibling is named explicitly, so differentiation relies on inference.

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 never states when to use this tool versus list_media or upload_media, nor any prerequisite such as where an assetId comes from. Usage is only weakly implied by 'one media asset,' which gives the agent no explicit routing guidance.

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