get_dop_field

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states it 'Reads' a field, implying a non-destructive operation, but it does not disclose what happens if the field does not exist, whether the DOP network needs to be cooked, whether it returns a value or an error, or any side effects. For a read tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap.

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 compact and front-loaded with the core purpose in the first sentence. The parameter list is structured and readable. It earns its place without excessive verbosity, though the parameter explanations could be slightly richer without harming conciseness.

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 has 4 required parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is not complete enough. It does not explain what a DOP record is, how to construct node_path or object_name, what the return value looks like, or error behavior. An agent with no prior DOP knowledge would struggle to invoke this correctly. The sibling list shows many DOP-related tools, but the description does not position this one within that family.

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 lists the four parameters with brief explanations (e.g., 'Dot-separated subdata path'), which adds some meaning beyond the bare schema. However, the explanations are terse and do not clarify the format of node_path or object_name, nor how they relate to DOP network hierarchy. The example for data_path is helpful but incomplete for an agent unfamiliar with DOP terminology.

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 ('Read') and resource ('a specific field value from a DOP record'), which clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_dop_object or get_dop_relationships. It could be slightly more explicit about what a DOP record is, but the core purpose is unambiguous.

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 implies usage by listing the required arguments, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_dop_object or get_simulation_info. There is no mention of prerequisites (e.g., the DOP network must exist, the object must be cooked) or exclusions. The context is clear enough for an agent to infer it is for reading a single field, but explicit guidance is missing.

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