eda_sch_primitive_attribute_get

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

With no annotations provided, the description is the only behavioral source. It usefully discloses that the call returns a Promise resolving to ISCH_PrimitiveAttribute or undefined on failure, which is meaningful behavioral information. However, it does not describe error behavior beyond undefined, prerequisites, or side effects, though for a getter these are limited.

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?

Three short lines: signature, a plain-language purpose, and return/failure semantics. The most important identifying information is front-loaded and there is no redundant prose.

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 low-complexity getter this is workable: it gives the call signature, return type, and failure indication, and the schema covers the wrapper parameters. It is incomplete around how primitiveIds maps into args, where IDs come from, and how this differs from sibling getters, leaving some inference to the agent.

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 already describes args as an ordered JSON array and windowId, so baseline is 3. The description adds the actual signature primitiveIds: string, indicating the first argument is a string, but it does not explain the ID format, whether multiple IDs are allowed, or how they are separated. It adds minimal value beyond the schema.

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 identifies the specific operation: sch_PrimitiveAttribute.get, fetching an attribute primitive by primitiveIds, and states the return type. It is clear about what the tool does, and the singular 'get' contrasts with get_all siblings, though it does not explicitly spell out the difference.

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 guidance is given on when to use this tool instead of related tools such as eda_sch_primitive_attribute_get_all or eda_sch_primitive_object_get. The signature implies fetching an attribute by primitive ID, but there is no explicit when/when-not guidance or prerequisite about obtaining primitiveIds.

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