origin_axis_get

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It communicates that the tool is a read operation and discloses the important nuance that returned values reflect Origin's current state, not whatever the caller previously set. This is genuinely useful behavioral context.

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 short and front-loaded: the first sentence states the action and object, and the second provides a concrete motivating use case. Every sentence earns its place with no wasted words.

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 covers the tool's purpose and when to use it, and an output schema exists to document return values. However, with three parameters and zero schema-level parameter descriptions, the missing guidance on axis and layer semantics leaves the definition incomplete for an agent that needs to invoke the tool correctly.

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 0%, and the description only vaguely references 'an axis' without explaining the axis, graph, or layer parameters. It does not clarify valid axis values, what layer means in Origin, or how to identify the target graph. The description fails to compensate for the schema's complete lack of parameter documentation.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Read an axis's scale and range as Origin currently holds them.' This clearly identifies it as a getter and distinguishes it from sibling tools like origin_axis_set.

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 advises using this tool before setting a range, noting that Origin's rescaling may have changed the actual value. This gives clear contextual guidance, though it does not explicitly name the alternative tool or state when not to use it.

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