get_asset_status

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It merely states 'Get the current status' without elaborating what 'status' entails, whether it's a lightweight read, what the response format is, or if the operation has side effects. This lack of detail undermines the agent's ability to assess safety and expected outcomes.

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, succinct sentence that front-loads the verb and resource. No information is wasted, though slightly more detail on output would not harm conciseness.

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 simple status-checking tool, the description lacks essential context: What does 'status' mean? What values can it return? Is there any pagination or staleness? Without output schema, the description should compensate by clarifying the return value, but it does not.

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 single parameter 'assetId' is described in the schema as 'The ID of the asset to check,' which matches the tool's purpose. Since schema coverage is 100%, the description adds no new meaning beyond reinforcing the required field.

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 ('status of an asset scan'), making the primary action clear. However, it does not differentiate this tool from siblings like 'get_asset' or 'get_asset_errors', which might also involve status information, leaving some ambiguity about scope.

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 provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., get_asset for broader details, or get_asset_errors for error specifics). The context of asset scanning is implied but not explicitly tied to a workflow.

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