get_asset

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It conveys implicit read-only semantics via 'Read' and clarifies what an 'asset' is, but says nothing about failure modes (missing path/asset), the returned format (text vs binary), size limits, or whether the asset must exist in an installed bundle.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; the core action and resource come first and the parenthetical examples clarify without bloat.

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?

With no annotations and no output schema, the description does a reasonable job of implying the return value (the file's contents) and scoping the two required params, but it omits error behavior and output format for a reader tool where those could matter.

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%, so the baseline is 3; both 'path' and 'asset' are documented in the schema with examples. The description adds only marginal meaning (assets are 'referenced by its README') and no syntax or format detail beyond the 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 ('Read') and a well-scoped resource ('supporting asset file bundled with a content item'), with concrete examples (example, script, template). It is clearly distinct from generic siblings like 'get' or 'search', though it never explicitly names the sibling it contrasts with.

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 explains what the tool does but not when to choose it over 'get', 'search', or 'list'. There is only an implicit usage context (you have a content item and want a bundled asset), with no prerequisites, exclusions, or alternative-routing guidance.

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