Read a published interface frame by name from a component via its handle. Fails loudly when the name is unpublished, enabling reliable reference-by-name resolution.
Read back a single published interface FRAME by name from a component (issue #139). The reference-by-name primitive feature templates ride on: an unpublished name fails loudly. Returns {handle, name, frame}.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes | ||
| handle | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does well: it discloses read-only behavior, the loud failure on an unpublished name, and the return shape {handle, name, frame}. It omits permission or rate-limit details, but for a read primitive this is solid behavioral context.
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 first sentence is front-loaded with the action and resource, and the three-sentence structure is efficient. Minor noise from 'issue #139' and template jargon keeps it from a 5.
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?
Given no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema coverage, the description provides useful return-shape and failure-mode context. However, it leaves 'interface FRAME' and handle semantics undefined, which is a meaningful gap for an agent navigating a large API.
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%, so the description must compensate. It maps the 'name' parameter to the interface name and 'handle' to a component ('by name from a component'), but it does not explain handle format or what a FRAME is, leaving both parameters only partially clarified.
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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Read back a single published interface FRAME by name from a component.' It distinguishes a read of a published interface from the sibling publish_interface, but does not explicitly name an alternative read tool such as get_object, so it falls short of a 5.
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?
Usage is implied: read back a published interface by name. The note that 'an unpublished name fails loudly' adds a prerequisite, but there is no explicit when-to-use versus alternatives like publish_interface or other retrieval tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.