get_parameter

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It explicitly states READ_ONLY, details the return structure, and discloses that expression is None when absent. The mention of apply_response_cap adds a behavioral nuance even if not fully explained. This goes beyond the schema and gives 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?

The description is concise and front-loaded with the primary purpose. It includes essential details (return format, None handling, response cap) in just a few lines without unnecessary fluff. Every sentence contributes value.

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 simple getter with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the key context: read-only, return keys, expression behavior, and a response cap. It does not specify error handling or parameter semantics, but for this tool's simplicity, it is reasonably complete. The missing parameter details are a minor gap given the tool's straightforward nature.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. However, it does not explain the meaning or format of ctx, path, or parameter. It only mentions 'parm' in a generic sense. This leaves significant ambiguity about how to construct the path or what ctx refers to, especially for an agent unfamiliar with the Houdini context.

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 it reads the current value, type, expression, and time dependency of a parameter. The verb '读取' (read) and resource 'parm' are specific, distinguishing it from mutation tools like set_parameter and more focused tools like get_expression.

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 by describing what it reads and noting READ_ONLY, but does not explicitly compare with alternatives like get_expression or set_parameter. There is no direct 'use when' or 'when not to use' guidance, though the context of the return value provides some implicit direction.

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