get_expression

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and provides useful behavioral details: it declares READ_ONLY, specifies that empty expressions return 'expression: None', and notes the response passes through 'apply_response_cap'. These go beyond the schema and help an agent understand safety and edge cases, though 'apply_response_cap' is not explained further.

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 concise and front-loaded, with the main action stated first. Each sentence adds information, but terms like 'add-node-parameter-vex-tools' are cryptic and could be omitted or explained to improve clarity.

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 absence of annotations, output schema, and parameter descriptions, the description is incomplete. It fails to explain key parameters or usage context, leaving an agent without enough information to correctly construct a request. The tool's simplicity does not excuse the lack of parameter semantics.

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 schema has 0% description coverage for its three parameters, and the description does not compensate by explaining ctx, path, or parameter. The names are ambiguous (especially ctx), and there is no hint of what each parameter represents or how they should be structured, making it impossible to invoke correctly with confidence.

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 reads a parm expression ('读取 parm 表达式') and explicitly notes READ_ONLY. This differentiates it from write tools like set_expression. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or contrast with get_parameter, so it misses some sibling differentiation.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention that it retrieves the expression rather than the evaluated value, nor does it explain when a user should prefer this over get_parameter or set_expression. The usage context is entirely implied by the name.

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