cavalry_get_attribute

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 disclosing behavior. It only says 'read', which implies a non-mutating operation, but lacks details on error behavior (e.g., invalid attrPath), return value type, or any dependencies. The minimal phrasing does not disclose operational caveats.

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 a single front-loaded sentence with no unnecessary words. It immediately tells the reader what the tool does and earns every word, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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's simplicity and that both parameters are documented, the description is mostly complete. It lacks an explicit mention of the return format, but 'read the value' implies the returned data. No output schema exists, but the tool's simplicity and the clear purpose cover most contextual needs.

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 schema description coverage is 100% (both 'layerId' and 'attrPath' have descriptions), so the baseline is 3. The description does not add additional meaning to the parameters beyond what the schema already provides; the examples in the schema ('position.x', 'fontSize') are already helpful.

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 action (read) and resource (attribute from a layer). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like cavalry_set_attribute (write) and other getters (e.g., cavalry_get_scene_layers) by the specific resource type. The verb 'read' immediately signals a non-mutating operation.

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 for reading an attribute value, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned (e.g., needing an active connection or valid layer). The usage context is inferred from the purpose, but there is no explicit guidance.

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