get_asset

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

The description states it retrieves 'full asset details' without side effects, which aligns with the readOnlyHint annotation. It does not contradict the annotation and adds reasonable context about the return type, though it does not enumerate specific errors or 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?

The description is remarkably concise—two sentences—with no redundant information. It front-loads the core action and adds a single, relevant parameter note, making it easy to parse.

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 tool's simplicity and lack of output schema, the description sufficiently covers what an agent needs to know: what it does, the supported asset types, and how to get one of the required IDs. It does not mention pagination or error handling, but these are less relevant for a get-by-id operation.

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?

Only workspace_id is explicitly described in the description, with a useful pointer to list_workspaces(). asset_id is only implied by the tool purpose, not explained as a parameter. Since the schema provides no descriptions, coverage is only partial.

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 purpose: 'Get full asset details by ID' and even lists the supported asset types. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_assets (listing) and search_assets (searching).

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 provides concrete guidance on obtaining a required parameter: 'workspace_id: target workspace ID — get available IDs from list_workspaces()'. It does not explicitly contrast with alternatives, but the purpose is clear enough that an agent can infer when to use it.

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