get_dimension_values

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

Since no annotations are provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the return format ('JSON string with dimension values') and the default cap of 100 values, which implies truncation behavior. It could go further by describing error handling or behavior for missing dimensions, but the core read-only behavior is disclosed.

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 compact and well-structured: a one-sentence purpose statement followed by a clean Args and Returns block. Every line adds value, and no information is repeated unnecessarily.

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 read-only lookup tool with three documented parameters and an output schema, the description fully covers what is needed to invoke it correctly: file path, dimension selection, result limiting, and return format. There are no significant gaps.

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% property-description coverage, so the Args section is the only source of parameter meaning. It clearly documents all three parameters: file_path, dimension_name, and max_values, including the default value.

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 opens with 'Get values along a dimension' and gives concrete examples like 'time steps, lat/lon coordinates', clearly identifying the action and resource. This differentiates it from sibling tools like get_variable_stats or get_time_range, which target variable data or ranges rather than dimension values.

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 examples establish a clear context for when to use this tool: retrieving actual dimension/coordinate values rather than variable data or bounds. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use it, so it does not reach the highest level of guidance.

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