get_asset_added_by

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of transparency. The verb 'Find' clearly indicates a read-only operation, and the description explains what the tool returns. However, it does not mention authentication requirements, behavior when the asset is not found in the group, or whether the result is a user object or ID. This is adequate for a simple lookup but leaves some gaps.

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, well-structured sentence that immediately conveys the tool's purpose. Every word earns its place, and the parenthetical clarification of asset_group types is useful without adding clutter.

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 two-parameter lookup tool, the description is largely complete: it explains what the tool does, the meaning of the parameters, and the scope of asset_group. However, it does not specify the return format (e.g., user object, user ID) and does not address potential error conditions. Given the complexity, these omissions are minor but slightly reduce completeness.

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 description adds meaning beyond the schema by specifying that 'asset_group_id' refers to a collection, lightbox, or folder, and implicitly clarifies that 'id' is the asset ID. Since the schema only describes 'id' as 'ID of the resource' and provides no description for 'asset_group_id', this textual clarification is valuable and compensates for the 50% schema coverage.

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 purpose with a specific verb ('Find') and resource ('which user added a given asset to a given asset_group'). It also clarifies that asset_group includes collections, lightboxes, and folders, which distinguishes it from related tools. This is highly specific and 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?

The description implies a clear use case: when you need to know the user who added an asset to a particular asset_group. It provides context but does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions. Since the tool is quite specific, the context is sufficient for most agents to select it correctly.

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