instrvar_get

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. The verb 'Get' implies a read-only operation, and the path construction mechanism is disclosed. However, it does not describe return value format, error behavior when the path/field is invalid, or any side effects.

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?

Two sentences with no filler. The core action is front-loaded, and the path construction detail earns its place as the only non-obvious information an agent needs.

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 getter with two fully documented parameters and no output schema, the description conveys the action, the return concept ('value'), and how the parameters combine. The absence of a defined return type or error semantics is a minor gap for such a straightforward read operation.

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 both parameters are already documented. The description adds value beyond the schema by explaining the relationship between the two parameters ('Path is constructed as input_output_path/field_name'), clarifying how field_name composes with the path rather than standing alone.

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 uses a specific verb and resource ('Get an instrument option field value') and adds the path construction rule, which makes the tool's function concrete. It does not explicitly differentiate from similarly named siblings like ivar_get, but the 'instrument option' phrasing and path detail provide enough distinction.

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 guidance is given about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as instrvar_set or instrvar_exists. The description states only what the tool does, leaving the agent to infer the complementary relationship with its write/existence-check siblings.

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