mpar_get

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the transparency burden. It does add useful context about the object lifecycle and minvalmax selection behavior, but it does not explicitly state that the operation has no side effects or what happens when param_path does not exist.

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 short sentences plus a tight bulleted option list. The core purpose is front-loaded and every sentence contributes useful information without repetition.

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 2-parameter getter with no output schema, the description covers purpose, object constraints, and all minvalmax choices. It could be slightly more explicit about the expected return value or format, but 'value' is sufficient for a basic read tool.

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 description adds meaningful semantics for the minvalmax parameter (Value, Min/Max, Opt Min/Opt Max), which the schema only exposes as bare enum strings. The param_path parameter is already documented in the schema with examples, so no additional path explanation is needed.

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 action and resource: 'Get a Model parameter value' and names the object type MPar. It also clarifies that MPar objects are netlist-defined and cannot be created or deleted, which distinguishes this read tool from mutation siblings.

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 read-only use ('Get') and warns that MPar objects cannot be created/deleted, but it never explicitly names alternatives or exclusions. An agent must infer from the tool name that setting or creating MPar values belongs elsewhere, such as mpar_set or mpar_set_bounds.

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