get_target_values

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

Even though no annotations are provided, the description discloses the deprecated status, the underlying deprecated sdv.databroker.v1 VAL.Get RPC with View.TARGET_VALUE, and the semantic meaning of target values. This goes beyond a simple action statement.

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 well-structured: purpose first, then a clarifying contrast, then a deprecation note, then the argument detail. There is minor redundancy in mentioning deprecation twice, but each part serves a clear informative purpose.

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 single-parameter tool with an output schema, the description covers the core need: what the tool does, how to invoke it, and how it differs from siblings. It does not explain error behavior, but for a simple read-like operation with output schema available, it is sufficiently complete.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description carries the burden of explaining the parameter. It defines 'paths' as a list of VSS signal paths and provides a concrete example, adding meaningful semantic context beyond the schema's bare 'Paths' title.

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 'Get the target (desired) values of actuator signals' with a specific verb and resource. It also distinguishes itself from get_signal by explicitly contrasting target values against current (sensed) values, so an agent can tell them apart.

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 provides explicit guidance: it names get_signal as the source for current values and recommends the Kuksa V2 Actuate flow (set_signal/get_signal) for reading actuation targets when possible. This clearly routes the agent to alternatives.

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