find_asset

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It does add behavioral context by revealing that results include recommendation rationale (matched_labels + why), which is useful. However, it does not explicitly state whether the operation is read-only, whether it has side effects, or any constraints like required permissions. The description covers only part of the behavioral picture.

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 extremely concise: two short sentences that deliver the core purpose and a distinguishing output feature. Every word contributes value, with the main point front-loaded. No filler or redundancy.

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 has a very rich input schema and exists among many asset-related siblings, but the description fails to explain when to use it versus alternatives, how the main parameters work, or what to expect in the output beyond rationale. Even though an output schema exists, the description should still provide enough context for an agent to choose and invoke the tool correctly; it does not.

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 0%, yet the description only clarifies two aspects: natural language (likely the 'query' or 'label_query' field) and label boolean filters (likely labels_all/labels_any/labels_none). The remaining parameters (count, diversity, weight overrides, pack_id preferences) are left unexplained. Since the single req parameter wraps a large object with many distinct fields, the description does not meaningfully compensate for the lack of schema descriptions.

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 that the tool 'finds assets' using natural language and label boolean filters, which are specific methods. It also mentions the unique feature of returning matched_labels and why, which differentiates it from siblings like list_assets or get_asset. The verb 'finds' plus resource 'assets' with specific search modes makes purpose unmistakable.

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 use cases (searching by natural language/filters) but does not explicitly contrast with similar tools like list_assets or get_asset, nor does it explain when to prefer this over alternatives. No 'when not to use' or alternative tool names are mentioned, so guidance is merely implied rather than explicit.

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