get_cel

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It accurately states the tool inspects and returns existence, position, bounds, and opacity, implying no side effects. It does not explicitly state it is read-only, but the verb 'inspect' is strong enough. A 5 would require explicit mention of safety or non-modification.

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, efficient sentence that front-loads the purpose. Every word is meaningful—no filler or redundancy.

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 has 3 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description provides only the core purpose and returned properties. It does not specify return format, error handling (e.g., if cel doesn't exist), or prerequisites like filename validity. Adequate but lacks detail for full agent autonomy.

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% (no parameter descriptions), and the description does not explain the three parameters (filename, layer, frame). It assumes domain knowledge about cel identification. The context 'Inspect a cel' gives minimal guidance, but the agent lacks specifics on the role of each parameter, leading to poor semantic support.

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 inspects a cel and lists what can be learned: existence, position, bounds, and opacity. The verb 'inspect' and resource 'cel' are specific, and the tool distinguishes itself from sibling tools like set_cel_position or delete_cel that modify or remove cels.

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 use for reading cel properties without modification. The verb 'inspect' clearly indicates read-only intent, distinguishing it from write siblings. However, no explicit alternatives or when-not scenarios are mentioned, so it stops short of a 5.

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