get_asset

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. 'Get' implies a read operation with no side effects, but the description does not reveal what 'detailed information' includes, whether the include_* flags materially change response size, whether auth is required, or any performance/rate-limit characteristics.

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, front-loaded sentence with zero wasted words. It states the verb, resource, and key qualifier ('by ID') efficiently. The description earns every word it uses.

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?

Adequate for a simple get-by-ID tool; the schema covers params and the description conveys the core operation. However, 'detailed information' is vague with no output schema to clarify the return shape, and with dozens of similar get_asset_* siblings, the lack of routing guidance leaves a real completeness gap.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all three parameters ('The asset UUID', 'Include user information', 'Include collections the asset belongs to'). The description adds nothing beyond the schema, matching the baseline of 3 for high-coverage schemas.

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 uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('a specific asset by ID'), clearly identifying this as the general single-asset getter. It is distinguishable from sibling tools like get_asset_version, get_asset_history, or get_asset_file because those all target specific sub-resources while this targets the asset itself, though it does not explicitly name that distinction.

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 is given for when to use this tool versus the many related siblings. With ~15 get_asset_* sibling tools, an agent has no way to know whether to pick this general getter or get_asset_metadata, get_asset_shares, get_asset_format, etc. No context, prerequisites, or exclusions are stated.

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