get_asset

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It correctly implies a read operation by stating 'Get full details', but it does not explicitly confirm non-destructiveness, required permissions, or rate limits. The description is adequate but minimal for a simple retrieval.

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, clear sentence with no wasted words. It efficiently conveys the tool's purpose and scope.

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 the simple single-parameter nature and lack of output schema, the description adequately covers what the tool does and what data it returns. It could mention whether the output is paginated or if any filters apply, but for a straightforward retrieval, it is sufficiently complete.

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%, with the parameter 'asset_id' described as 'Asset ID or RRN'. The tool description does not add further semantics beyond the schema, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 gets full details of an InsightIDR asset, listing included data like software, vulnerabilities, and network interfaces. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools such as get_asset_activity and search_assets by specifying the exact resource and scope of details.

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 description implies usage when needing comprehensive asset details, but it lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like search_assets for listing or get_asset_activity for events. No exclusions or when-not-to-use advice is provided.

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