get_asset_info

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

The description says 'detailed metadata' but discloses no behavior beyond that. Since no annotations are provided, the description carries the full burden, and it fails to mention that this is a read-only operation, what specific metadata fields are returned, or how the tool behaves when the asset path is invalid. This leaves the agent guessing about the tool's actual 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 a single sentence that is front-loaded and free of fluff. It earns high marks for conciseness, though the phrase 'detailed metadata' is vague and could be more informative without adding length.

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 that there is no output schema and no annotations, the description must compensate by explaining what 'detailed metadata' entails and what the return format is. It does neither. For a simple getter with one parameter, this is a significant gap: the agent cannot reliably know what information will be available after calling the tool.

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 covers the single parameter fully, including a clear description and example. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, but per the rubric, high schema coverage (100%) yields a baseline of 3. There is no extra semantic value provided.

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 tool's action ('Get') and target ('detailed metadata for an asset'), which is specific enough to distinguish it from sibling tools like list_assets. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with similar asset-query tools such as search_assets or get_asset_references, so it falls short of a 5.

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. The description only states what the tool does, with no mention of use cases, prerequisites, or exclusions. Sibling tools like search_assets and get_asset_references occupy overlapping space, but no differentiation is given.

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