Get Asset Layout

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

With annotations already covering safety (readOnlyHint) and open-world scope, the description still adds substantial behavioral context: compact vs. full return shape, expand semantics, and precise bounding behavior (limit default 25/max 100, scan capped at 500 records/4 pages, RESOLUTION_TRUNCATED rather than a partial answer).

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?

Front-loaded with purpose then usage then return/bounds/alternatives, and every clause carries information. It is dense and semicolon-heavy, running several concerns into one compound sentence, which slightly reduces readability.

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 read tool with an output schema and safety annotations, the definition covers everything an agent needs: resolution semantics, return shape, a documented truncation boundary, and routing to hudu_search. Nothing material is missing.

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 coverage is 50%, but the description compensates by explaining the identifier's role (resolution from name/slug vs. id) and what opts.expand true/false yields. It enriches the sparse schema (opts carries no description) without fully documenting every identifier-object key (domain, external_id) beyond what the schema shows.

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+resource ("Resolve an asset layout") and enumerates accepted identifier forms (id, name, slug). It distinguishes itself from hudu_search ("not for text discovery") and from a cheaper direct-id path, though the latter ("asset_layouts.get") is an operation name rather than a listed sibling tool, slightly muddying differentiation.

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?

Gives explicit when-to-use ("when the identifier is a layout name or slug") and when-not ("asset_layouts.get is cheaper for a known id"; "Not for text discovery: call hudu_search"). Both an alternative and the selecting condition are named, leaving nothing to inference.

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