apple_get_asset

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose one useful behavioral trait — that presigned upload URLs are deliberately not returned — and that processing state and delivery errors are surfaced. However, it says nothing about auth/permission needs, whether 'processing' implies polling, or how failures are signaled, which is a notable gap for an unannotated tool.

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 no filler; the verb and the returned data lead immediately. It is dense but readable and every clause maps to real behavior.

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?

With no output schema, the description usefully enumerates what is returned (processing state, specId, errors) and what is not (presigned URLs), which partially substitutes for a schema. But with zero annotation and zero param coverage, the guidance on inputs and failure/retry semantics is thin for an agent to call it reliably.

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% across two required params, so the description must compensate and largely does not: assetId is never explained, and mediaType is only obliquely implied by 'image or video'. The mention of 'matched specId' is a concept but not a parameter, adding little parameter-level meaning.

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 ('Read') plus a precisely scoped resource: an image or video asset's processing state, matched specId, and delivery errors. This clearly separates it from write-path siblings like apple_upload_asset or apple_delete_asset, though it never names those siblings explicitly.

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 or when-not-to-use guidance. It's implied you call this to inspect an asset's state, but the description doesn't mention alternatives such as apple_wait_for_asset (for polling) or apple_list_assets (for enumeration), leaving the agent to infer routing.

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