Get Asset Details

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already communicates that this is a safe read operation, and the description is consistent with it. The phrase 'detailed information' adds little behavioral detail, but the output schema can carry return-value expectations, so this is adequate for a simple read tool.

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 one short sentence with no filler and the main verb appears first. It is concise, though it is somewhat redundant with the title and could have used the space to add distinguishing context.

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?

The tool is simple, the schema fully documents the single parameter, and an output schema exists, so missing return-value details are not a problem. However, without usage context to distinguish it from sibling asset/file tools, the description is only minimally 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 coverage is 100% and the only parameter, asset_id, already has a meaningful description. The tool description adds no additional syntax or format guidance, so it does not exceed the baseline established by 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 uses a clear verb-resource pair ('Get detailed information about an asset') and aligns with the tool name and title. It is unambiguous about the operation, though it does not explicitly differentiate from similar sibling tools such as godot_get_file_info or godot_find_assets.

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 guidance on when to call this tool instead of the many related asset/file tools. The agent must rely on the tool name and schema, since the description gives no context about prerequisites, selection criteria, or alternatives.

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