store_get

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. While 'Get' implies a read-only operation, the description doesn't clarify whether this requires authentication, has rate limits, returns specific formats, or handles errors. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral gaps that could affect agent decision-making.

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 extremely concise—a single, clear sentence that gets straight to the point without any fluff. It's front-loaded with the core purpose and wastes no words, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly. Every word earns its place in this minimal but effective phrasing.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (1 parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'Get' entails (e.g., returns metadata, downloads content), what an 'asset' is in this context, or how this differs from similar tools like 'store_download'. For a tool in a rich ecosystem with many siblings, more context is needed to guide proper usage.

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 has 1 parameter ('id') with 0% description coverage, meaning the schema provides no semantic information. The description doesn't add any parameter details—it doesn't explain what 'id' represents, its format, or where to obtain it. With low schema coverage, the description fails to compensate, leaving the parameter's meaning unclear.

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 action ('Get') and resource ('an asset from the store'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'store_search' (which searches) and 'store_download' (which downloads), though it doesn't explicitly contrast with them. The description is specific enough to understand what the tool does without being tautological.

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 use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention when to choose 'store_get' over 'list_assets' (for listing) or 'store_search' (for searching), nor does it specify prerequisites like needing an asset ID. Without any contextual usage information, the agent must infer when this tool is appropriate.

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