get_asset_version

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. 'Get' implies a read operation, but the description does not mention return shape, error behavior, permissions, or any operational characteristics. For an un-annotated tool, this is a significant transparency gap.

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, direct sentence with no filler. The action and target are immediately clear and front-loaded.

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?

With no annotations and no output schema, the description would need to provide more context about what 'details' means and what kind of version data can be expected. It also does not clarify how this differs from get_asset or list_asset_versions, leaving the agent with only a shallow idea of the tool's purpose.

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%, and both parameters have descriptions as UUIDs. The description itself adds no additional parameter semantics, so the baseline of 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 states a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('asset version'), and the word 'specific' signals this is a targeted fetch rather than a list operation. It is clear enough to distinguish from list_asset_versions, though 'details' is generic and does not explain what fields are returned.

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 an agent has both asset_id and version_id and needs details for one version, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_asset or list_asset_versions. No when-not guidance or sibling routing is provided.

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