fog_get

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds a useful behavioral detail — that it returns exists: false when no fog is present — which tells the agent how to detect absence. It does not add further behavioral context beyond that.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It is terse but appropriately sized for a simple getter, though the terseness contributes to the missing parameter guidance.

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?

An output schema exists, so detailed return-value explanation is not required, and the exists:false note covers the key edge case. However, the lone 'ref' parameter's meaning is left entirely undocumented, which is a real completeness gap for an agent trying to invoke this correctly.

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% and there is one parameter, 'ref', whose type (integer|string|null) and purpose are entirely unexplained in both schema and description. The description does not compensate for this gap, leaving the agent unsure what 'ref' refers to or whether to supply it.

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 names a specific resource (the scene's fog) and states it returns its attributes, which distinguishes it from the sibling fog_set mutation. It is clear about what is retrieved, though it could explicitly name fog_set as its counterpart.

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?

There is no explicit guidance on when to call this versus fog_set or other scene-inspection tools like scene_info. The read-only nature is only implied by the word 'get' and the shape of the response, not stated as usage context.

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