get_tool

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

No annotations are provided so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose that the call expands into related collections (agents, issues, code locations), which is useful added context, but says nothing about permissions, read-only safety, or result limits.

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 compact sentence with the primary purpose front-loaded and the expanded returns trailing. No wasted words, though it is arguably under-specified rather than deliberately concise.

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?

With no annotations, no output schema, and an undocumented required parameter, the description covers return scope but leaves safety profile and parameter meaning unexplained. Adequate for a simple one-parameter read but with clear gaps.

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 0% for the single parameter and the description gives no indication of what asset_id refers to (tool id? asset identifier format?). The agent must infer that the identifier is a tool ID from the tool name alone.

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?

Specific verb ('Get') plus resource ('a tool's detail') and it enumerates the associated data returned (agents, issues, code locations). It is clearly distinguishable from the plural sibling list_tools, though it does not name that sibling explicitly.

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?

Usage is only implied by the singular 'get' naming and the required identifier; there is no statement of when to prefer this over list_tools, list_agents, or get_agent, and no prerequisites or exclusions are given.

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