get_wrangle_code

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

With no annotations provided, the description must bear the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does disclose that the tool is READ_ONLY and that the response passes through apply_response_cap, adding some transparency. However, it lacks details on error handling, required permissions, or any side effects, which is a modest but not comprehensive disclosure.

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 composed of three short sentences, with the first sentence immediately stating the core purpose. It is front-loaded, contains no redundant information, and every phrase adds value, including the return structure and the response handling note.

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?

The tool is a simple getter, but the description is incomplete given the sparse schema and missing annotations. It does not explain the input parameters, which are critical for correct use. The return structure is mentioned, but without further context on when or how to use the tool, the description is insufficient for reliable invocation.

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 input schema has 0% description coverage, and the description does not explain either 'ctx' or 'path' parameters. It only mentions 'path' as part of the return structure, which gives a hint about its meaning but does not clarify its input role or the meaning of 'ctx'. The description fails to compensate for the complete lack of schema descriptions.

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 action ('reads the snippet') and the resource ('Attribute Wrangle SOP'), making the tool's purpose unambiguous. It also includes 'READ_ONLY' to signal it is a read operation, which helps distinguish it from sibling tools like set_wrangle_code.

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 through its read-only nature and return type, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives. There is no mention of when not to use it or any alternative tools, leaving the agent to infer from the sibling list.

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