td_get_param_help

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

Annotations (readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false) already declare safe, non-destructive, idempotent behavior. The description adds 'live metadata + knowledge card entry + current value,' which explains the output composition but does not disclose additional behavioral traits like potential errors, rate limits, or authentication requirements. Given annotations carry the safety profile, the description provides moderate added transparency.

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 of 12 words, front-loaded with the verb and resource, and has zero redundancy. Every word is informative. No extraneous details or structural issues.

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?

The tool has an output schema (not shown but indicated), which likely details return fields. The description covers the core purpose and output components. However, it lacks information on error handling (e.g., if parameter doesn't exist), expected node_path format, or any prerequisites (e.g., node must exist). For a simple lookup tool, this is adequate but not fully complete.

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%, and the description provides no explanation of the two parameters (node_path, param_name). While the parameter names are somewhat self-explanatory, the description does not clarify expected formats (e.g., node_path: absolute vs relative; param_name: exact name or pattern). The tool description should at least hint at the type of values expected to aid correct invocation.

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 'Get help for a specific parameter: live metadata + knowledge card entry + current value.' It specifies a verb ('Get help'), resource ('parameter'), and scope ('live metadata, knowledge card, current value'). It distinguishes from siblings like td_get_params (which lists parameter values) and td_get_node_detail (which gets overall node info). Purpose is unambiguous and unique.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., when to use td_get_params vs. this help tool). It lacks explicit context such as 'use when you need explanations or documentation for a parameter' and does not mention when not to use it or any prerequisites. The agent must infer usage from the tool name alone.

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