get_parameter

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It communicates a non-destructive read operation and the prerequisite that the node must be running, but it does not disclose error handling, permissions, or potential side effects beyond the inherent read behavior.

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 a single, focused sentence with no wasted words. It is concise, front-loaded, and effectively communicates the core functionality.

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 two-parameter read operation with no output schema, the description adequately covers the essential context: what it does and the prerequisite that the node is running. It lacks details on return format or failure modes, but these are not critical for a basic read tool.

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. While it does not explicitly define node_name or param_name, the context 'from a running ROS2 node' and 'parameter value' provide implicit meaning. The parameter names are self-explanatory, but no additional format or constraint details are given.

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 live parameter value from a ROS2 node, using the specific verb 'Read' and resource 'parameter value'. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like set_parameter by focusing on reading rather than setting.

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 context ('from a running ROS2 node') but does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over alternatives or mention exclusions. The contrast with set_parameter is implicit, not explicit.

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