get_expression

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 only says 'Get the expression' without explaining return format, behavior when a parameter has no expression, or whether the expression is returned as a raw string. This is a minimal read operation, but the description leaves important behavioral details uncovered.

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 short and front-loaded with the action. It includes an Args section that directly maps to the two input parameters without any filler. It is appropriately concise, though the brevity comes at the cost of behavioral and usage details.

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 annotations, no output schema, and minimal parameter descriptions, the tool is not fully specified. The agent knows the basic inputs and the action, but not the return value shape, edge cases, or how this tool relates to sibling tools like get_parameter or set_expression. A simple getter could get by with this, but it leaves gaps that matter for correct invocation and interpretation.

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 for missing parameter documentation. It provides 'node_path: Node path' and 'parm_name: Parameter name,' which are nearly identical to the schema titles and add no new meaning about path syntax, parameter name format, or examples. This does not adequately compensate for the lack of schema descriptions.

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 action and object: 'Get the expression on a parameter.' This is not a tautology and clearly identifies the resource (parameter expression). However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like get_parameter or evaluate_expression, which could be confused for similar retrieval operations.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention that this tool retrieves the raw expression string rather than the evaluated value, nor does it point to get_parameter or evaluate_expression as alternatives for different use cases. The usage context is entirely left to the agent to infer.

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