get_signal

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of disclosing safety. It explicitly states 'No side effects' and explains that 'lit' is reported as a bool independent of aspect. This adds useful behavioral context beyond the tool's basic function, though it does not cover error handling or return format details.

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 compact and well-structured, starting with the main purpose, then parameter details, and an additional note. Every sentence provides value with no wasted words.

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 the essential information: what it returns (aspect and lit) and that it has no side effects. Minor gaps include lack of error handling or unique-match behavior, but overall it is sufficiently complete for a basic getter.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It does so effectively by explaining the 'name' parameter: 'Mast name (system name or userName) or unambiguous fragment. Case-insensitive.' This adds significant meaning beyond the schema's bare 'Name' title.

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's function: 'Get the current aspect of one signal mast.' This is a specific verb+resource pairing and distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_signals (listing all signals) and set_signal (changing an aspect).

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 when to use the tool (to read a single signal's aspect) but does not explicitly mention alternatives or provide exclusions. It lacks guidance such as 'use list_signals for multiple masts' or 'use set_signal to change aspect.'

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