get_attr_path

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It clearly states this is a read operation (non-destructive), which is transparent. However, it does not disclose error behavior for invalid paths, supported value types, or whether it can access any attribute in the Blender data model. The examples hint at syntax but don't specify edge cases.

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 a single sentence that front-loads the purpose ('Read a value via path') and immediately gives examples. Every word earns its place; there is no fluff or repetition.

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 simple tool with one parameter and an output schema, this is largely complete. The return format is covered by the output schema, and the examples clarify path syntax. The main gap is lack of error-handling details and explicit statement of supported path forms, but these are minor for a read operation in an environment with many sibling getters.

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 schema has 0% description coverage for the single parameter 'path', so the description must compensate. It does this effectively by providing two concrete path examples that illustrate the syntax (dot notation for attributes, bracket notation for indices/keys). This adds meaningful semantic guidance beyond the empty schema field, though it doesn't formally define the grammar.

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 it reads a value via a path, with concrete examples ('context.scene.frame_current', 'data.objects["Cube"].location'). It distinguishes itself from the sibling set_attr_path by being the read counterpart. The verb+resource is specific and unambiguous.

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 description implies it is for reading arbitrary values via a path, but it gives no explicit guidance on when to use this instead of specific getter tools like get_object_info or get_scene_info. It does not mention any exclusions or alternatives, leaving the agent to infer that it's a generic low-level read.

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