get_asset_references

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already establishes this is a safe read operation, so the description's main added value is clarifying that the result spans assets, entities, and settings. It does not describe output shape or potential breadth/performance behavior, but for a simple read-only lookup the baseline bar is met.

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, well-structured sentence that immediately conveys the action and scope. There is no redundant wording or filler, and the key behavior is 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 lookup tool, the description covers the essential purpose and result categories. The absence of an output schema is not a major gap since the description tells the agent what kinds of items will be listed. A short note about response format would make it fully complete, but it is already sufficient.

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?

The input schema already provides full coverage of the single `id` parameter with 'Asset ID'. The description adds only the context that this ID identifies an asset, which is already implied. With 100% schema coverage, the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 ('List') and a precise resource ('project assets, entities, or settings that reference an asset'). It clearly distinguishes this tool from generic asset getters like get_asset by focusing on inbound references rather than the asset itself.

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 implies the tool is used when you need to discover which project items depend on or reference a given asset, but it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives. Context is clear but exclusions are absent.

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