Get Asset Raw Content

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, and idempotentHint, so the description does not need to repeat safety info. It adds minimal context about 'raw content' but does not disclose return format, authentication needs, or potential errors. Acceptable given annotation coverage, but no extra value.

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 sentence, perfectly front-loaded with the action and object. No unnecessary words or repetition.

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 read-only tool with one parameter and strong annotations, the description is nearly complete. It could explain what 'raw content' means (e.g., file bytes vs parsed text) since there is no output schema, but the title and description together are sufficient for most use cases.

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 100% with asset_id described as 'Asset id'. The description's 'by id' adds no new meaning beyond the schema. Baseline 3 applies since the schema carries the parameter semantics.

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 action ('Fetch'), the resource ('raw content of an asset'), and the key identifier ('by id'). It distinguishes itself from siblings like lyzr_get_asset by specifying 'raw content', making the purpose unmistakable.

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 the tool is for retrieving raw asset content but provides no explicit guidance on when to use it versus alternatives like lyzr_get_asset for metadata. There are no stated exclusions or alternative tool references.

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