get_wrangle_code

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states that it reads code, providing no details about return format, error handling for invalid paths, or behavior when the node is not an Attribute Wrangle. This is a minimal disclosure for a tool that could fail in several ways.

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 extremely concise with no wasted words, consisting of a single-purpose sentence and a clear Args listing. It is efficiently structured though minimal; it prioritizes brevity without sacrificing the core message.

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 single-parameter read tool, the description provides the essential information: what it does and what input it needs. It does not cover edge cases like invalid nodes or return value specifics, but for a simple getter this may be sufficient. With no annotations or output schema, a bit more context (e.g., returns a string of VEX code) would improve completeness.

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 description includes an Args section stating 'node_path: Path to the wrangle node', which adds a basic semantic explanation beyond the bare schema (which only provides the title 'Node Path'). However, it does not elaborate on expected format, required specificity, or examples. Given that schema description coverage is 0%, this modest addition earns a mid-range score.

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 clearly states the verb 'Read' and the resource 'VEX code from an Attribute Wrangle node', giving a specific, unambiguous purpose. It is easily distinguished from siblings like set_wrangle_code and create_wrangle, which involve writing or creating.

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, such as set_wrangle_code for writing or get_parameter for generic parameter access. The description does not mention context, prerequisites, or excluded cases, leaving the agent to infer usage.

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