input_get_modedict

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'Get' and describes the returned payload; it does not confirm read-only behavior, return structure, error handling, or side effects. An agent must infer safety and failure semantics entirely from the verb.

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, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It states the verb and object immediately and avoids repeating the tool name or schema fields. This is appropriately concise for the amount of information it conveys.

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 one-parameter getter, the description is close to sufficient, but the missing input_path semantics and complete lack of usage guidance leave an agent unsure what value to pass. With no output schema or annotations, the description should provide at least a path convention and a note distinguishing this from output_get_modedict.

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?

The schema has one required parameter, input_path, with 0% description coverage, and the description never mentions it. No explanation is given for what input_path should contain, its format, or how it relates to the mode dictionary. The description fails to compensate for the missing schema documentation.

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 identifies a 'get' operation on a 'mode dictionary' and specifies its content ('available modes and their required fields'), which separates it from generic input_get_* field/data tools. It does not explicitly contrast with output_get_modedict, but the input_get_ prefix and function name largely disambiguate the resource.

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?

No usage conditions, exclusions, or alternatives are mentioned. With sibling tools like output_get_modedict and many other input_get_* functions, the agent is not told when to choose this tool over the alternatives. The only guidance is implicit in the tool name and terse description.

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