get_asset_text

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description adds meaningful context by specifying that the full text contents are returned as text and that the tool does not serve binary assets. This is sufficient for a simple read operation, though it doesn't mention potential size limits or error behavior.

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 two sentences with no filler: the first sentence front-loads the operation and return type, and the second sentence gives precise negative usage guidance. Every part 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 read-only tool, the description fully covers what the tool does, what it returns, what asset types it applies to, and when to use sibling tools instead. No output schema is needed because the return type is stated explicitly as text.

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 documents the only parameter, assetId, with the same valid text-based asset types listed in the description. Schema description coverage is 100%, so the description adds little beyond re-emphasizing what the schema already provides.

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 ('Read') and resource ('full text contents of a text-based asset'), and explicitly enumerates valid asset types (script, text, json, css, html, shader). It also distinguishes itself from siblings by naming what it is not for.

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 an explicit 'When NOT to use' section with concrete alternatives: script_parse for declared name/attribute definitions and list_assets for listing assets. It also rules out binary assets like textures or models, giving clear selection criteria.

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