Sb3 Get Target Json

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not state what 'proxied' means (e.g., network calls, performance implications), whether the tool returns the entire raw block or subtree, or whether it depends on a loaded project. It does not disclose any side effects (likely none) or permissions needed. The term 'Raw' suggests no processing, but that is not elaborated.

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 (one sentence) and front-loads the key idea. It is not verbose. The parenthetical '(proxied)' is an extra detail but not explained, yet it does not waste much space. Given the minimalism, it earns a 4 for efficiency.

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?

There is an output schema, but we are not shown its content. The tool is relatively simple (2 params, no nested objects), but zero parameter descriptions and lack of usage context make it incomplete. An agent would struggle to know what to pass for 'pointer' and what to expect. Given no annotations and no schema descriptions, the description is insufficient for correct invocation.

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%, meaning the schema provides no descriptions for 'name' or 'pointer'. The description only mentions 'target' and 'JSON Pointer', which maps to 'name' and 'pointer' respectively, but this is minimal. It does not explain the format of 'pointer' (e.g., JSON Pointer syntax), default behavior when pointer is empty, or what 'name' refers to (target name?). With 0% coverage, the description must compensate but does not, leaving two parameters almost completely undocumented.

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 states it retrieves a 'Raw project.json entry for a target, or subtree at a JSON Pointer', which clearly indicates the resource (project.json) and the operation (retrieve). However, it lacks specificity about what a 'target' is and how it relates to siblings like sb3_get_target (which likely retrieves a processed target). The verb is implied ('get') but not explicit. It is more than a taautology, but it does not fully distinguish from similar tools.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The mention of 'JSON Pointer' hints at advanced use but no context is given. Among siblings, there is sb3_get_target, sb3_list_sprites, and others, but the description does not state when to prefer this raw JSON retrieval over those. The proxy annotation '(proxied)' is mentioned but not explained.

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