object_get_val

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It does reveal an adjustable behavior: the minvalmax selector applies to parameters and msb applies to datasets, which clarifies how the tool adapts to object type. However, it does not state return value semantics, error behavior for unsupported object types, or explicitly confirm non-destructive behavior beyond the verb 'Get'.

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 compact sentences front-load the main purpose and then provide targeted specifics without any filler. Every phrase adds value, and the structure is easy to scan.

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?

The description is adequate for a simple getter but leaves gaps: no guidance on when object_type is needed for ambiguous paths, no return value description (no output schema exists), and no differentiation from sibling getter tools. These gaps are noticeable but not fatal, since the basic invocation is clear.

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 description coverage is 75%, so the baseline is near-sufficient. The description adds cross-parameter meaning by linking minvalmax to parameters and msb to datasets, which the individual parameter descriptions do not convey. It does not explain object_path, but the schema also leaves that blank.

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 clear verb and resource: 'Get the value of an IC-CAP object.' It adds concrete detail about supported selections for parameters (minvalmax) and datasets (msb), so the purpose is more specific than a tautology. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling getters like object_get_valof, but the core behavior is 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 description implies when to use the tool (to retrieve an object value) and notes two relevant cases: parameters and datasets. It gives no exclusionary guidance or mention of alternatives, such as typed getters or object_get_valof, leaving the agent to infer selection from context.

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