cavalry_get_attributes

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

No annotations are provided, so the description fully carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'Retrieves', implying a read operation, but does not mention whether the tool is read-only, if it requires any permissions, what happens if the layer doesn't exist, or if it supports batch queries. The lack of depth leaves significant behavioral ambiguity.

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 sentence, efficient and front-loaded with the core action. It conveys the essential purpose without extraneous detail, earning its place.

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 low complexity (2 params, no nested objects, no output schema), the description is adequate but not thorough. It lacks details on error behavior (e.g., invalid path) or return format, which would be helpful.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds minimal value by mentioning 'value of a specific attribute or array of attributes', which hints that attributePath can be singular or complex, but does not elaborate on the format or examples beyond what the schema already documents.

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 tool retrieves attribute values from a layer using a specific verb ('Retrieves') and resource ('attribute' of 'layer'). It is distinct from siblings like 'cavalry_set_attributes' which sets values, and 'cavalry_get_comp_layers' which lists layers, so purpose is clear with implicit differentiation.

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 attributes but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this vs alternatives like 'cavalry_eval_expression' (which could also retrieve computed values) or 'cavalry_get_comp_layers' (which returns layer info but not attributes). No when-not or prerequisite context is given.

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