Get Decisioning Asset Code

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds one genuinely useful nuance beyond them: the DS2 code is *generated* for rule sets/decisions/trees, whereas for code_file it is the file's own source. It says nothing about whether generation happens on demand, can fail, or what a revision lookup changes.

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 no filler; the key fact (what code is returned) comes first and every clause contributes.

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?

An output schema exists, so return shape need not be explained, and annotations carry the safety profile. What is missing for correct invocation is routing context: how this differs from get_decisioning_asset/get_decision_flow_code and how revision_id should be used.

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% and the asset_type enum already enumerates the four values, so restating them in the description adds nothing. The revision_id parameter is not mentioned at all in the description, leaving the 'revision instead of current state' semantics entirely to the schema.

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 names the concrete resource being returned (the DS2 code Viya generates) and enumerates the source asset kinds, so an agent knows this fetches generated code rather than asset metadata. It is a noun phrase without an explicit verb, and it never names the close sibling get_decisioning_asset (which returns metadata) or get_decision_flow_code, so differentiation is left implicit.

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?

There is no statement of when to call this versus get_decisioning_asset, get_decision_flow_code, or list_decisioning_asset_revisions, and no guidance on when to pass revision_id. Usage has to be inferred from the one-line resource description alone.

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