alloy_get_dictionary

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states the core function (getting dictionary values) and gives an example, but it does not disclose that this is a read-only operation, nor does it mention error behavior, response structure, or any side effects. It is adequate for a simple get but lacks depth beyond the core purpose.

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, both dense and to the point. The first sentence states the purpose with examples; the second explains utility. No filler words, and the most important information is front-loaded.

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 8 parameters and no output schema or annotations, the description provides the core purpose and use cases but does not describe the response format or how pagination/filtering behaves, leaving some inference to the agent. The schema covers parameters, but the overall context is only moderately complete.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters clearly (objectClass, refField, filters, par_limit, etc.). The description adds no parameter-specific semantics beyond the schema, so it stays at the baseline of 3.

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 clear verb ('Get') and a specific resource ('allowed reference/classification values for a field on an Alloy Navigator object class') with concrete examples (Status, Types for Incidents or Computers). It clearly distinguishes itself from sibling list/get tools by its subject matter, though it does not explicitly name a sibling as a contrast.

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 explicitly states two use cases: resolving what a status/type code means and building a valid filter value for alloy_list_objects. This gives an agent clear context for when to invoke this tool, but it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternative tools as exclusions.

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