Get raw target JSON

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure and does it well: it states the returned content, notes the data is 'exactly as stored', and explains the default whole-object behavior versus subtree fetching with pointer. It does not mention error cases or auth, but for a read-only retrieval tool the key behaviors are adequately disclosed.

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?

Three sentences with no filler. The description front-loads the core purpose, then immediately gives actionable workflow context (read first for patch_target) and parameter usage. Every sentence adds value and the structure is easy to scan.

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 two-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description fully covers what is returned, why to use it, and how to narrow the response. The patch_target workflow context and pointer examples give an agent everything needed to invoke the tool correctly in its primary use case.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful context beyond the schema by tying pointer paths to JSON Pointers into the object and giving concrete examples like '/blocks' and '/blocks/abc123'. It also clarifies that omitting pointer returns the whole target, reinforcing the schema's optionality.

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 fetching a target's complete raw project.json entry, listing its contents (blocks, costumes, sounds, variables, lists, properties) and the exact storage format. It distinguishes itself from siblings like get_target by specifying 'raw' and by framing this as the source for patch_target JSON Pointer paths.

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 explicitly says 'Read this first to author a patch_target edit', giving a clear when-to-use scenario. It also explains how to use the pointer parameter to keep responses small. It does not explicitly contrast against siblings like get_target or list_blocks, but the workflow guidance is strong enough for an agent to know when to choose this tool.

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