Get Asset

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and openWorldHint, so the read-only nature is covered. The description adds the behavioral context that it returns metadata (not the raw asset), which is useful distinction from get_asset_raw. However, it does not disclose error behavior or output structure.

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 concise sentence, front-loaded with the core action and resource. There is no wasted wording or repetition of schema details.

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 1-parameter read-only tool, the description is largely complete: it specifies the input (id), the output type (metadata), and safety profile via annotations. It could be enhanced by noting not-found behavior, but that is a minor gap given the tool's simplicity.

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 100%, with asset_id documented as 'Asset id'. The description's 'by id' adds no new semantic information beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 verb 'fetch', the resource 'asset metadata', and the access method 'by id'. This distinguishes it from related tools like lyzr_list_assets and lyzr_get_asset_raw, making the purpose 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 phrase 'by id' implies the tool should be used when an asset_id is known, but there is no explicit mention of when to choose it over alternatives like list_assets for finding IDs or get_asset_raw for raw content. Usage context is implied but not explicitly stated.

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