get_submodel_element_value

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the HTTP method (GET) and the 'raw value' semantics, but it does not mention potential pitfalls like binary responses, encoding behavior, or error conditions. The $value path hint adds some transparency but not rich detail.

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 compact: one sentence stating purpose and one line for the endpoint. No wasted words, and the key information is front-loaded.

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 simple retrieval tool with an output schema and complete parameter documentation, the description is largely sufficient. It lacks explicit usage guidance, but the endpoint mapping provides enough context to understand its role among sibling tools.

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 100%, so all parameters are already described in the schema. The description references submodel_id and id_short_path in the endpoint but adds no extra meaning beyond the schema. Since the schema does the heavy lifting, the baseline of 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 clearly states the tool retrieves the raw value of a specific Submodel element, using a precise verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from siblings like get_submodel_element (which returns metadata) by referencing the $value endpoint, making its scope unambiguous.

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 REST endpoint implies when to use this tool (to get raw values without metadata), but it does not explicitly compare with alternatives like get_submodel_value or get_submodel_element. Usage is inferable but not directly stated, so it falls at the 'implied usage' level.

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