get_asset

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that the result is the complete JSON, which is mildly useful, but it does not disclose error behavior, access permissions, or response shape beyond 'complete JSON'.

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 clear sentence with no waste. The key scoping ('one', 'by id') and output type ('complete JSON') are front-loaded.

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 one-parameter read-only getter, the description is largely complete: it says what it returns, identifies the lookup key, and annotations confirm safety. It lacks explicit routing to sibling asset tools, but that is not essential for invoking this simple tool correctly.

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% and the id parameter already has a description ('Asset ID'). The tool description only restates that lookup is by id, adding no new semantic 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?

The description states a specific verb ('Get'), resource ('one project asset'), and selection key ('by id'), and specifies the result is the complete JSON. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_asset_references, get_asset_text, and download_asset without requiring the agent to open their schemas.

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 provides no guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives or when not to use it. There is no mention of alternatives such as list_assets for querying multiple assets or get_asset_references for reference data.

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