diana_parameters

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

Goes well beyond the readOnlyHint annotation by disclosing a concrete pitfall: the full path printed first does NOT work with setParameter (returns False and changes nothing), while parameter() reads with any form. It also notes the existence-filtering behavior that parameters only show up once assigned, which an agent cannot infer from the annotations.

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?

Front-loaded with what it returns and the setParameter pitfall before the args block. The nested parenthetical about 'set as' and parameter() is a little dense and could be split, but no sentence is filler.

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?

No output schema exists, and the description compensates by describing the per-line return shape and the allowed-value metadata. It does not say what happens on an unknown name or invalid item_type, which is the main remaining gap for a two-required-arg lookup tool.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage the description must carry the load, and it does for item_type by enumerating all ten accepted values (MATERIAL, GEOMET, DATA, ...), which the schema leaves as an unconstrained string. The name parameter is only described as 'name of the item' with no hint about naming or lookup failure, so it falls short of full compensation.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: lists every parameter of one item in the open project, with current value plus the schema's title, unit, domain and allowed values. The return content is concrete, so an agent knows exactly what it gets versus a generic 'get' tool.

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?

Explicitly says to call it after addMaterial / addGeometry / createPointLoad to discover what a class and model offer, and warns that parameters only appear once they have a value. It lacks a direct when-not or named alternative (e.g. diana_model_summary), which keeps it from a 5.

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