post-asset-get-bulk

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states a read operation ('Get'), implying non-destructive behavior, but doesn't disclose critical details like authentication needs, rate limits, error handling, or response format. For a bulk retrieval tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.

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, efficient sentence with zero waste. It front-loads the core action ('Get multiple assets') and specifies the key constraint ('by their IDs'). Every word earns its place, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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 bulk retrieval tool with 2 parameters, 50% schema coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It lacks details on authentication, response format, error cases, and parameter usage. Given the complexity and missing structured data, it should provide more context to be complete.

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 50% (only 'originalAssets' has a description). The description mentions 'by their IDs', which aligns with the 'assetIds' parameter but adds no syntax or format details. It doesn't explain 'originalAssets' or compensate for the undocumented parameter. With partial schema coverage, the description provides minimal added value.

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 ('Get') and resource ('multiple assets'), specifying retrieval by IDs. It distinguishes from siblings like 'get-assets' (likely unfiltered list) and 'get-assets-by-asset-id' (single asset), but doesn't explicitly name alternatives. The purpose is specific but lacks explicit sibling differentiation.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives is provided. The description implies bulk retrieval by IDs, but doesn't specify prerequisites, limitations (e.g., max IDs), or compare to siblings like 'get-assets' or 'post-search-assets'. Usage is implied by the name and description alone.

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