get_attribute_value

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so the safety bar is covered. The description adds real behavior beyond them: an unknown attribute is not an error but returns found=false, and 'value' is the current value with modifiers applied while base_value is the unmodified baseline.

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?

Two tight sentences plus a returns line, with the essential scope stated first and the sibling alternative and error semantics following. No filler; the returns line is warranted given no output schema exists.

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, the description covers purpose, sibling routing, the not-found behavior, the field semantics, and the return shape (compensating for the absent output schema). Nothing an agent needs to call it correctly is missing.

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 both parameters (actor_name, attribute_name) are already fully documented including case-insensitivity and match rules. The description adds no parameter-level syntax or format beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb (Read) and resource (one attribute from the attribute sets on an actor ability system component), and explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling that lists all attributes ('get_attributes lists every attribute'). An agent can route between the two without opening either schema.

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?

Names the alternative (get_attributes) and the scope condition that selects this tool (reading a single attribute). It stops short of an explicit 'use this when you need X vs Y' rule, so it falls just short of full when/when-not guidance.

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