Get Object Value

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

With no annotations, the description is the only source of behavioral info. It says 'current present-value,' implying time-sensitivity, but doesn't disclose whether tags are optional, what happens if the object doesn't exist, or authentication requirements. Significant gaps for a read operation.

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?

Single sentence, directly stating the action and resource. No filler; appropriately concise for a simple evaluation.

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 tool has an output schema, so return values need not be explained, but with 3 undocumented parameters, no annotations, and no behavioral details (e.g., error handling, tag semantics), the description is too sparse for an agent to call correctly without external knowledge.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must explain each parameter. It only mentions 'present-value and tags' but doesn't clarify what object_type, device_instance, or object_instance mean in the BACnet context, or their formats. The description adds minimal meaning beyond the raw names in the schema.

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 clearly states the tool reads present-value and tags of a single BACnet object, which distinguishes it from list-oriented siblings like list_devices and list_objects. However, it lacks explicit comparison to siblings, so it doesn't earn a 5 for sibling differentiation.

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 usage: to read a single object's value/tags. It does not explicitly state when to use this versus list_objects (e.g., for a single object) or list_tagged_topology. Acceptable but not explicit.

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