get_statetree_parameters

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

With no annotations, the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only states the action is 'Get', implying a read operation, but fails to disclose side effects, permissions, or any other behavioral traits. This is insufficient for a safe selection.

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 extremely concise: a one-line purpose followed by a single parameter docstring. No wasted words; the key information is front-loaded. Ideal length for quick scanning.

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?

While the presence of an output schema reduces the need to describe return values, the description is minimal and does not explain what 'tree-level parameters' encompasses or how it relates to other statetree concepts. Adequate for simple use but lacking in broader context.

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% coverage, so the description compensates by explaining the 'asset_path' parameter as a 'Content path to the StateTree asset'. This adds meaningful context beyond the schema's type-only definition. However, the description does not elaborate on format or validation.

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 retrieves 'tree-level parameters' and specifies the information included (name, type, value). However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like get_statetree_info or get_statetree_states, missing an opportunity for clarity.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not specify prerequisites or context, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name alone.

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