hda_get

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It explicitly marks the operation as READ_ONLY, specifies that short/unknown/ambiguous names return a stable error, and mentions response handling via apply_response_cap. This adds meaningful context beyond the schema, though the exact metadata contents are not described.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, and every clause adds value. It is dense yet readable, with no redundant wording or fluff.

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 tool's simplicity (one parameter, no output schema), the description covers input constraints and error behavior well. However, it does not describe the structure or content of the returned definition metadata, which would be important without an output schema. This is a notable gap for an agent deciding whether the tool returns what it needs.

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 fully compensate. It does: it explains that node_type must be a full category name from hou.NodeType.nameWithCategory(), provides an example (Sop/box), and warns against short/unknown/ambiguous names. This goes far beyond the schema's 'Node Type' string field.

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 states '读取 definition metadata' (read definition metadata), which is a specific verb+resource. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like hda_list (listing HDAs) and get_hda_sections (getting sections). The scope is unambiguous.

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 specifying the required format for node_type, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives. No sibling tools are mentioned as alternatives or exclusions. The input constraint is helpful but does not provide full usage context.

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