get_parameter

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does add real behavioral value by disclosing the returned ramp structure (keys, values, is_color, basis) and its round-trip compatibility with set_parameters/build_network. However it says nothing about failure modes (invalid node_path or parm_name), whether values are evaluated expressions or raw, or read-only guarantees.

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?

Front-loaded with the purpose, followed by the one non-obvious detail (ramp round-trip format) and a brief arg list. Compact with no filler, though the Args block adds almost no information and could have been spent on path format instead.

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 two-parameter getter with no annotations and no output schema, the description explains the ramp return case well but leaves the return shape for ordinary (non-ramp) parameters undefined, and does not cover error behavior. Adequate but with clear gaps.

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, and it does not: 'node_path: Node path' and 'parm_name: Parameter name' merely restate the parameter identifiers. No path format (relative vs absolute), no scoping rules, and no meaning beyond the names.

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?

States a specific verb+resource: 'Get the value and metadata of a parameter.' This is clearly distinguishable from set_parameter(s) and from get_parameter_schema by naming 'value and metadata'. No explicit sibling comparison is made, but the verb+resource pairing 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?

Usage is only implied through the round-trip note that a ramp reads as a dict 'which set_parameters and build_network take back as it is' — useful workflow context. There is no guidance on when to choose this versus get_parameters (bulk) or get_parameter_schema (template/definition), which are the closest siblings.

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