get_parameters

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It conveys only that values are read from a live instance; it says nothing about permissions, whether the instance must be idle/running, or whether the read has side effects, which matters alongside siblings like wait_for_idle and pause.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler or repetition. It is efficient, though terse enough that it leaves real questions unanswered rather than being maximally informative.

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?

With no output schema and no annotations, the description partially compensates by naming what comes back ('values and definitions'). However, it omits structure of that return and any behavioral constraints, so an agent still lacks a full picture for a getter over a live runtime object.

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 single required parameter 'programmable' is fully documented in the schema as 'Programmable name' (100% coverage). The description adds no syntax, naming, or lookup detail beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 names a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('current parameter values and definitions') scoped to 'a live programmable instance'. An agent can distinguish it from a definition-only or write-oriented tool, though it never explicitly contrasts itself with the sibling set_parameter.

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 phrase 'for a live programmable instance' hints at the required context but gives no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or prerequisites. The obvious alternative, set_parameter, is never mentioned, leaving the read-vs-write choice to inference.

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