get_expression

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and supplies almost nothing: it does not say what is returned when the parameter has no expression, whether missing node/parameter names raise an error, or whether the call is a safe read. Only the word 'Get' hints at a non-mutating retrieval.

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 single sentence is front-loaded and free of filler, so nothing is wasted. However, its brevity comes at the cost of specification rather than from economy of expression.

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 two-parameter read tool with no output schema, a one-line description could in principle be sufficient, but here the lack of annotations, zero schema coverage, and several closely related sibling tools leave real gaps around return values and error behavior.

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%, so the two required parameters (node_path, parm_name) are documented only by their bare titles. The description's phrase 'on a parameter' hints at the pairing but adds no meaning about path format (e.g. '/obj/geo1/xform1') or how parm_name resolves, so it does not compensate for the coverage gap.

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 gives a specific verb and resource ('Get the expression') scoped to a target ('on a parameter'), which is enough to know it retrieves an existing expression string rather than creating or evaluating one. It stops short of distinguishing itself from siblings like evaluate_expression or set_expression, so it lands at 4 rather than 5.

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?

There is no guidance on when to choose this over evaluate_expression, create_vex_expression, or set_expression, and no prerequisites or exclusions are stated. The agent must infer from the name alone that this reads an expression rather than running or writing one.

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