get_by_path

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states the tool resolves to a node with a ref but does not disclose error handling (e.g., invalid path), whether it is read-only, or any side effects. Minimal behavioral context is given.

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 concise sentence that includes a helpful example. Every word earns its place, and it is front-loaded with the action and resource.

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 (1 parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description covers the core purpose and parameter format. However, it omits details on what happens if the path is invalid or what the 'ref' entails, leaving minor gaps. It is largely complete for basic usage.

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 has one required parameter 'path' with 0% description coverage, so the description must add meaning. It provides an example format ('game.Workspace.Part'), clarifying the expected dotted path syntax, which adds significant semantic value beyond the raw 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 clearly states the tool resolves a dotted instance path (e.g., game.Workspace.Part) to a node with a ref. The verb 'resolve' and the specific example make the purpose unambiguous. It is distinct from siblings like get_children or get_root.

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 one has a dotted path to resolve, but it does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_root or search. No exclusions or alternative tools are mentioned.

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