get_signal

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the behavioral disclosure burden. It clearly communicates that this is a read operation ('Get the current value'), but it does not mention error behavior, whether the value reflects live/updated data, or any side effects. It is adequate for a simple getter but leaves some behavioral details unspecified.

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 very compact: it opens with the API context and purpose, then gives an 'Args' section that directly maps to the schema. Every sentence adds value, and the example paths are useful without adding verbosity.

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?

This is a low-complexity tool with one parameter and an output schema, so the description does not need to explain return values. It covers the input semantics adequately. It loses one point because it does not explicitly guide the agent on when to choose this over the closely related get_signals tool.

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 0%, so the description must compensate for the schema's lack of parameter guidance. It does so well by explaining that 'path' is a VSS signal path and giving two realistic examples. For the single required parameter, this provides enough semantic context for an agent to construct a valid call.

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?

Description states a specific verb ('Get'), a specific resource ('current value of a single VSS vehicle signal'), and includes concrete path examples. It clearly distinguishes itself from the sibling get_signals by emphasizing it retrieves a single signal rather than multiple.

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 makes it clear the tool operates on a single VSS signal path, which implies it should be used instead of get_signals when only one value is needed. However, it does not explicitly state when-not-to-use it or name alternative tools, so usage guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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