godot_get_asset_details

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the scope of returned content but says nothing about network access, latency, or potential failures when reaching the Godot Asset Library. It does not contradict the annotations.

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 sentence that front-loads the action ('Retrieve'), names the resource, and lists the key data categories. There is no redundancy with the schema or annotations, and every word earns its place.

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 read-only lookup tool, the description covers what the tool returns and identifies the source library. The output schema and parameter descriptions fill in response format details. The main omissions are guidance on when to prefer this over search/install siblings and any external network dependency, but these are secondary for a correctly invoked tool.

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?

The input schema already documents both parameters: asset_id (format and example) and response_format (markdown/json choices). The description adds little beyond the schema, though the phrase 'download metadata' gives minor context to what asset details include. Since schema coverage is high, a baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 uses a specific verb ('Retrieve') and resource ('an asset from the Godot Asset Library'), and enumerates what is returned: full details, previews, description, and download metadata. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like godot_search_asset_library or godot_install_asset_package.

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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention that this is for fetching details once an asset_id is already known, nor does it compare with godot_search_asset_library or godot_install_asset_package. Usage context is only implicit from the verb 'Retrieve' and the required asset_id.

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