get_stem_targets

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It clearly indicates a read operation ('Get'), describes the data sources ('custom parameters AND measured values from reference glyphs'), and explains the semantic role of the returned values. It stops short of explicitly stating that it performs no mutations, but the 'Get' verb and the overall context make that clear. A slightly stronger statement about side-effect-free behavior would push this to 5.

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 tightly written, with the core purpose in the first sentence, followed by a concise explanation of what the returned values are and a usage directive. Every sentence adds value, and the structure front-loads the most critical information. No filler or redundancy.

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?

The description adequately explains the tool's purpose, return content, and relation to siblings, which covers most operational needs for a simple getter. However, the complete omission of the master_id parameter is a notable gap—an agent would not know whether passing a value is necessary or what it controls. Given the tool's low complexity, this missing piece prevents a higher score.

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 has one parameter, master_id, with 0% schema description coverage (no descriptions in the schema). The tool description completely omits any mention of this parameter, leaving its purpose and acceptable values entirely undocumented. Since the description is the only source of parameter semantics and it fails to address it, the score is minimal.

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 opens with a clear verb+resource: 'Get the designer's intended stem values from the Dimensions palette.' It specifies exactly what the tool retrieves (stem snap values and measured values from reference glyphs) and explicitly differentiates its purpose from siblings like compare_stems and measure_stems by labeling these as 'TARGET values'.

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 explicitly states when to use this tool: 'Use this as baseline for compare_stems' and clarifies the intended comparison ('to check if glyphs hit the designer's intended values, not just if they're consistent with each other'). This directly addresses the alternative tool and the decision context, leaving no ambiguity about its role.

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