get_asset_status

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden and delivers: a disclosed side effect ('the query also escalates the asset in the build queue'), the failed-build-answers-missing behavior, and gem-version/auth requirements. This is exactly the behavioral context annotations would otherwise provide.

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 the core purpose and return shape, then Args. The full status-enum listing is useful but somewhat verbose when an output schema exists; still, every sentence is relevant and there is no filler.

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 an output schema exists (so return values are optional), the description still adds side-effect, prerequisite, and failure-mode detail. Nothing needed to invoke it correctly 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 0%, so the description must compensate and does: path accepts 'a source or product path, relative to the project, or a full path', and flush_io means 'Flush the file monitor first' with timing guidance. Both params gain meaning absent from the bare schema.

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 (get) and resource (one asset's build status) and clarifies the mechanism ('through the editor', 'Ask the Asset Processor'). Distinguishes itself from the whole-processor sibling get_asset_processor_status by scoping to 'one asset'.

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?

Explicitly routes the agent: use get_asset_jobs or wait_for_asset to disambiguate a failed build from an unregistered file. Also states prerequisites ('Needs the AiCompanion gem 0.6.0+; works in secure mode') and a when-to-use for flush_io ('right after writing the file').

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