uad_raw_get

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It clearly states the tool is read-only, returns data verbatim, includes metadata, and that writing is separated. It lacks details on path syntax or error behavior, but the core read-only nature is transparent.

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 three short sentences with no filler. It front-loads the core purpose, then gives usage context, and ends with an important exclusion. Every sentence earns its place.

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 1-parameter tool with an output schema, the description covers purpose, use cases, and write separation. Minor gaps such as exact path format and what 'full mode' means are not fatal, but a bit more detail on path handling would make it 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 coverage is 0% for the single 'path' parameter, but the description compensates by explaining that the path addresses a node or property in the engine tree and can be used to confirm type/range/enum values. It does not specify path format, but the semantic meaning is clearly 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?

The description clearly states the tool reads any node or property in the engine tree verbatim with metadata, which is a specific verb and resource. It also differentiates from writing tools by explicitly noting it is not for writing, though it does not name sibling tools explicitly.

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 explicit 'Use when' and 'Not for' guidance: use when no other tool covers a need or to confirm types/ranges/enums, and avoid for writing. It clearly indicates that writing is deliberately separate and only available in full mode, giving strong usage boundaries.

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