uci_get

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only states the read action without explaining what happens if the path does not exist, whether the operation is read-only (even though 'Get' implies it), or the structure of the returned value. This minimal disclosure is insufficient for a tool with no annotation support.

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 that immediately states the core function with no fluff or redundant phrasing. It is front-loaded with the verb 'Get' and effectively communicates the tool's purpose in minimal words.

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 the tool's low complexity, one parameter, and lack of output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It fails to specify return value format or error behavior, but this is partially offset by the clear schema. The description could be more complete but meets the bar for a simple getter.

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 input schema fully covers the single 'path' parameter with a clear format and example ('network.lan.ipaddr'), so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description adds no extra parameter information, matching the baseline of 3 for high schema coverage.

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 'Get a specific UCI option value' clearly states the action (get) and resource (UCI option), and the word 'specific' implies a single value rather than a list, distinguishing it from tools like uci_show. However, it does not explicitly name sibling tools or contrast its scope with them, 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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as uci_show or uci_set. It does not mention prerequisites, exclusions, or typical use cases, leaving the agent without decision-making context.

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