get_value_types

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses that the tool is deprecated and internally uses the deprecated sdv.databroker.v1 VAL.Get RPC, which is valuable. However, it does not describe error behavior, side effects, or operational constraints beyond the read-only implication of 'Get'.

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 compact and front-loaded with the core purpose, then adds a deprecation note, an alternative source for the same information, and an Args section. Every sentence contributes meaningful information, and none of it merely repeats the schema.

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 read tool with an output schema available, the description covers the tool's purpose, when it is useful, its deprecated status, an alternative, and the required parameter. An agent has enough information to call it correctly without significant ambiguity.

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 coverage is 0% and the schema only says 'Paths' as an array of strings. The description compensates by defining 'paths' as a list of VSS signal paths and providing realistic examples, which gives an agent the semantic information needed to construct valid input. It could add constraints like maximum length or invalid-path behavior, but the examples are sufficient for normal use.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Get the data types of one or more VSS signals.' It also gives concrete example paths and notes that the tool is deprecated and that equivalent data type information is available via list_signals, which helps an agent distinguish it from related sibling tools.

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?

It explains that the tool is useful for determining how to interpret or set a signal value, and explicitly mentions that list_signals also provides data type information. It does not fully spell out 'use list_signals instead' or hard when-not-to-use conditions, but the deprecation notice and alternative reference provide clear guiding context.

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