get_attrib_values

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not state that the operation is read-only, what happens if the attribute does not exist, whether the result is a list or dictionary, or if any side effects (e.g., cooking) occur. The description only repeats the core purpose and provides a parameter hint.

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 extremely concise: two sentences with no redundant wording. It front-loads the action and uses the second sentence to clarify a key parameter. 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?

Given the absence of an output schema and annotations, this description is not complete enough for an agent to fully understand the tool's behavior. It lacks information about return format, edge cases, and side effects. The complexity is low, but the description still leaves significant gaps.

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. It partially does for attrib_class by listing valid values ('point, prim, detail'), which adds meaning beyond the schema. However, node_path and attrib_name are not described beyond their names, leaving a semantic gap for those parameters.

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 a clear action and resource: 'Get all values of a geometry attribute.' This establishes what the tool does. However, it does not distinguish this tool from closely related siblings like get_geo_summary or get_prim_intrinsics, which also read geometry data.

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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention any exclusions, prerequisites, or typical scenarios. The only extra information is a list of valid attri_class values, which is parameter guidance rather than usage context.

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