Asset Inventory Detail

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

Beyond annotations (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint false), the description discloses returning a clean not-found error for missing asset IDs and reuses graph store context. This adds behavioral detail without contradicting 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?

Two sentences front-load the primary purpose, then add context on behavior and error handling. Every word earns its place, with no fluff.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (3 params, one required), rich annotations, and output schema, the description covers purpose, behavior, error handling, and reuse context. No missing information for an agent to use it correctly.

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?

With 100% schema description coverage, the schema already documents parameters. The description adds value by explaining the overall output (e.g., attributes, relationships, blast-radius impact) and error handling, complementing the schema without redundancy.

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 it returns one asset's attributes, relationships, and blast-radius impact, using a specific verb ('Return') and resource ('one asset'). This distinguishes it from siblings like inventory_list (list) and blast_radius (separate tool), as it provides a combined detail view.

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 usage for inspecting a single asset and mentions reusing the graph store node context like the dashboard drawer, giving clear context. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when not to use it or alternatives, such as for batch queries or separate blast radius analysis.

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