attribute_get_all

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It correctly implies a read-only operation and states the return shape as a dictionary, but it does not mention side effects, errors, authentication needs, or limitations. This is acceptable for a simple getter but still leaves gaps.

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?

One sentence communicates the operation, scope, and return format with no filler. The key information is front-loaded and every word earns its place.

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 one-parameter tool with no output schema, the description does state the return container and the target parameter is already schema-covered. However, the lack of guidance against similar sibling tools and the absence of behavior like empty-result handling make it only minimally complete.

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 single parameter target is fully documented in the schema as 'Full path or UUID of the Instance.' The description adds no extra semantic detail beyond referencing the Instance, so with 100% schema coverage the baseline score of 3 applies.

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 names a specific operation: 'Get all attributes of an Instance' as a 'key-value dictionary.' The word 'all' distinguishes it from the sibling attribute_get, although it does not explicitly call out the sibling by name.

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?

No guidance is given about when to use this tool versus attribute_get, property_get_all, or other attribute-related siblings. The bulk nature of 'all attributes' is implied, but there are no explicit when/when-not instructions.

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