lom_get

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

Annotations already declare the safe, idempotent, read-only profile, and the description adds real value on top: the path dialect (Max for Live style) with three concrete examples and the output shape for lists (counts and names). It does not say what happens on an invalid or nonexistent path, which is the main remaining gap for a path-driven reader.

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?

Front-loaded with the action and resource, then syntax, then routing advice, then output shape. No filler sentences, though the guidance and path material are packed into one block rather than visually separated.

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, the description does the right thing by describing the return form for objects and lists. It stops short of error/failure behavior and depth semantics for nested paths, which matters for a generic object-model reader.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must carry the load, and it does: the `path` parameter's syntax and semantics are given with worked examples, and `properties` is explained as an optional projection ('all property values or only `properties`'). It could be tighter on whether subproperty indexing is supported, but the core usage is conveyed.

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?

Specific verb (Read) plus resource (an object of Live's object model) and scope (by path, with full properties or a subset). It is clearly distinguishable from lom_set, lom_call, and lom_describe, and it explicitly positions itself against the curated 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?

"Use the curated tools first; this reaches anything they do not cover" is an explicit when-not rule and tells the agent this is the catch-all fallback. The alternatives are described only as a category rather than named, so an agent still has to infer which sibling to prefer for a given case.

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