get_rig_control_value

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

Annotations already carry readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description goes beyond that by disclosing the typed value (ERigControlType), the presence of limit min/max in the result, and the exact return shape, which is genuinely useful behavioral context.

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 front-load the purpose and scope, followed by a compact Returns block. No filler, and the most decision-relevant information comes first.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description must carry the return contract, and it does so fully with an explicit object shape including optional min/max. Combined with complete parameter documentation, an agent has everything needed to call and consume the result correctly.

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 (control_rig_path, control_name) are documented in the schema, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no parameter syntax or format detail beyond the ERigControlType note, which concerns the returned value, not the inputs.

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 (a Control Rig control's current value) plus the exact scope (value + limit min/max). It explicitly distinguishes itself from the setter siblings set_rig_control_value and set_rig_control_limits, so an agent can separate it from the write tools in a very large sibling set.

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 phrase 'Round-trips set_rig_control_value / set_rig_control_limits' implies the complementary read-after-write workflow and names the related tools, but it never states an explicit when-to-use or when-not condition. Usage is inferable rather than declared.

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