Get Asset Context

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds one genuinely useful behavioral fact — that a refused sub-list returns UNAUTHORIZED, implying partial results are possible — but says nothing about pagination defaults, the effect of expand, or the size of the context payload.

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?

Three short, front-loaded sentences with no filler — the core action comes first, then the identifier forms, then the error behavior. Terse jargon like 'AssetContext' and 'UNAUTHORIZED' is used without explanation, but the structure is efficient.

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 an output schema present, the description need not explain return values, and the annotations cover safety. The remaining gap is modest: opts (limit/expand) and the shape/size of the returned context are not addressed, which matters for a nested-object tool with a 100-row cap.

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%, so the description has to compensate. It correctly enumerates the accepted identifier forms (id, name, slug, serial), which maps onto the anyOf/object schema, but it leaves opts.limit and opts.expand entirely unexplained in the description. Note the slight mismatch between 'serial' and the schema's 'primary_serial'.

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 states a specific verb and resource: fetch an asset together with its context (AssetContext). That distinguishes it from generic siblings like hudu_search or hudu_read, though it does not explicitly contrast with the closely named hudu_get_company_context / hudu_get_article_context.

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?

It says how to call the tool (pass an identifier) but never says when to prefer it over hudu_search, hudu_read, hudu_resolve_any, or the other *_context siblings. There are no conditions, prerequisites, or exclusions offered.

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