mautic_get_asset

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds only the REST path, which corroborates a read, and says nothing about authentication, error behavior for missing assets, or response shape. With annotations carrying the load, this is adequate but thin.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the action, with zero filler. It is efficient, though its brevity edges toward under-specification rather than optimal density.

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?

This is a simple one-parameter read tool with annotations covering safety and no output schema to explain, so little is required. Still, it omits what an "asset" is in Mautic and what happens when the ID does not exist, leaving minor gaps for an agent deciding whether to call it.

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, but the path template "{id}" in the description implicitly ties to asset_id, and the name is self-explanatory. No format hints, valid-range notes, or lookup guidance are added beyond the schema's anyOf integer/string constraint.

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?

"Get one asset" gives a specific verb (get) and resource (asset), and the endpoint "GET /api/assets/{id}" confirms it is a single-record fetch. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling mautic_list_assets, so an agent must infer that this is the single-item counterpart to that list tool.

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?

The word "one" implicitly contrasts with listing, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no mention of mautic_list_assets as the alternative, and no statement of prerequisites such as a valid asset ID. The agent is left to infer routing from the tool name alone.

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