output_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. 'Get' implies a read-only operation, but the description does not explicitly confirm side-effect-free behavior, return format, error conditions, or any output-specific requirements. This is minimal and leaves important behavioral traits undisclosed.

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, direct sentence with no filler, repetition, or unnecessary detail. It is front-loaded with the action and the target resource, making it easy to parse quickly.

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 tool with no annotations, no output schema, and a jargon-heavy term like 'mode dictionary', the description is too sparse. It does not explain what the mode dictionary contains, how the output_path should be used, or what the agent should expect in return. A one-parameter getter could be adequately documented with a bit more context, but this falls short.

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 input schema has 0% description coverage and only names the parameter `output_path` with a generic string type. The description does not explain what the path should point to, how it relates to an Output object, or what format it should take. The parameter name and the phrase 'for an Output' give only a minimal hint, but the description fails to compensate for the lack of schema-level detail.

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 verb and resource: 'Get the mode dictionary for an Output.' It also distinguishes itself from the sibling `input_get_modedict` by explicitly targeting Output rather than Input. However, the term 'mode dictionary' is unexplained jargon, so the exact nature of the returned data is unclear without further context.

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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as `output_get_field`, `output_get_data`, or `output_get_df`. It does not state what a mode dictionary is used for, nor does it mention any exclusions or conditions that would make this tool the right choice.

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