superops_assets_get

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. The verb 'Get' clearly implies a read-only operation, and the description specifies the types of data returned (hardware, OS, network). However, it does not disclose potential error conditions, permission requirements, or response structure, leaving some behavioral gaps.

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 sentence that front-loads the core purpose and key details. It is concise, free of redundancy, and every segment ('detailed information', 'specific asset', 'hardware, OS, and network details') adds value.

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?

For a simple get-by-id tool with one required parameter and no output schema, the description sufficiently conveys the tool's function and output scope. The mention of hardware, OS, and network details gives the agent a clear idea of what the response will contain. However, it does not explicitly mention that the response is a single asset object or handle error cases, but this is minor given the tool's simplicity.

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?

The input schema fully documents the sole parameter 'assetId' with a clear description, so schema coverage is 100%. The tool description does not add extra parameter-level information, but the schema already provides sufficient meaning, matching the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 identifies the tool as retrieving detailed information for a single asset, and explicitly lists hardware, OS, and network details as the scope. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like assets_list (list), assets_software, and assets_patches by content focus. The verb 'Get' and resource 'asset' are specific and unambiguous.

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 usage context is implied by the description: use this tool when you need detailed information about a specific asset. However, no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is provided, and no alternatives are named. The contrast with sibling asset tools is left to the agent to infer.

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