mvs_get_asset

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

With no annotations, the description carries the disclosure burden. 'Get' clearly indicates a read-only retrieval and 'full detail' signals the expected response granularity. Still, no additional behavioral context such as error handling, permissions, or 404 behavior is disclosed.

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 six words, front-loaded with the action and target, and contains no filler. Every word earns its place.

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 single-parameter get operation with an output schema, the description gives the essential call contract. However, the presence of mvs_asset_details in the sibling list creates ambiguity about which tool to use for asset details, and the description does not resolve that ambiguity.

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% and the only parameter, asset_id, is already described as 'The asset's UUID.' The description adds no extra parameter meaning, but the schema is sufficient on its own, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 clear verb ('Get'), a clear resource ('asset'), and a singular scope ('one asset'). It does not differentiate itself from the sibling tool mvs_asset_details, whose name suggests the same operation, so it stops short of a 5.

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 'one asset' implies this is the tool to use when a specific asset ID is known and full details are needed. However, it offers no explicit guidance about when to prefer this over siblings like mvs_asset_details or mvs_list_assets.

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