Get attributes

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered without the description. The description adds the batch-read fact ('one or more attributes'), but says nothing about error behavior for invalid attribute paths or missing layers, nor about the shape of returned data.

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 sentence with zero filler, front-loading the action and scope. Nothing needs to be trimmed and nothing redundant is restated from the title.

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 two-parameter read tool with annotations covering safety, this is nearly complete. The gap is the absence of any output schema and no description of the return shape (e.g., ordered values vs. keyed map matching attrIds), which the description should supply when no output schema exists.

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 50% and, while both parameters carry inline descriptions (attrIds documents path syntax like 'position.x', layerId points to cavalry_list_layers), the description only restates that it is 'one or more attributes on a layer'. It adds essentially no semantics beyond the schema, so a baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 specific verb ('Read') and resource ('current values of one or more attributes on a layer'), so the agent immediately knows this is a batch read of attribute values. It does not, however, differentiate itself from the sibling cavalry_list_attributes, which is the most likely point of confusion.

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?

Usage is only implied: 'current values' signals a read/state-inspection operation, and 'one or more attributes on a layer' hints at bulk reads. There is no explicit when-to-use, no mention of prerequisites (a valid layerId), and no routing away from cavalry_list_attributes or cavalry_get_bounding_box.

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