get_knob

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is covered, and 'Read' is consistent with that. Beyond this, the description adds nothing behavioral: it does not say what happens if the node or knob is missing, nor that knob values vary in type (int, float, string, array), which is meaningful for a getter with no output schema.

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 core sentence is short and correctly front-loaded, but the trailing 'Args' section is a verbatim copy of the input schema and therefore earns nothing. Roughly half the text is redundant, which dilutes rather than aids the description.

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 simple two-parameter read tool whose annotations already establish the safety profile, this is minimally adequate. With no output schema, the description could reasonably have stated the variability of knob return types; that omission is the main completeness gap.

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 100%, so the schema fully documents both parameters. The 'Args' block in the description merely duplicates the schema text verbatim (including the same example knob names), adding no syntax or format detail beyond what structured data already provides. Baseline 3 applies.

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 opening sentence 'Read a knob value from a node' gives a specific verb (read), resource (knob), and scope (from a node), which is clear and unambiguous. However, it does nothing to distinguish itself from the sibling set_knob (the write counterpart) or read_node_detail, leaving the agent to infer the boundary between reading one knob and reading full node data.

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?

No when-to-use guidance is given. The description never mentions the natural alternative set_knob for writing, nor when to prefer get_knob over read_node_detail when the agent needs broader node data. Usage must be entirely inferred from the tool name.

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