Expand Lazy Value

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, openWorld, and idempotent behavior, so the description does not need to restate those. It adds valuable behavioral context beyond annotations: the operation is only valid while the debug session lives, and the default response contains only name/description/value while withSchema adds a potentially large JSON Schema. This gives the agent clear expectations about side effects and response scope.

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 tightly written sentences. The core purpose is front-loaded, the session-validity caveat is immediately relevant, and the withSchema warning earns its place without padding. No redundant restatement of already-schema-covered parameter details.

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 read-only, idempotent fetch tool with no output schema, the description adequately explains what is returned by default, what the optional schema adds, and the liveness constraint tied to the debug session. It could go further by mentioning that a stale parameterId might fail or become invalid after the session ends, but overall it gives enough context for an agent to call it correctly.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3, and the description adds meaning on top of that by explaining where parameterId comes from (a lazy ParameterValue from openl_inspect_trace_frame) and clarifying why withSchema should be used sparingly. This bridges the schema to the tool's workflow context, which is genuinely useful.

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 ('Fetch'), a specific resource ('full value of a parameter returned lazily'), and the exact condition that triggers its use (lazy: true with a parameterId). The title 'Expand Lazy Value' is reinforced and the tool is clearly distinguished from openl_inspect_trace_frame, which produces the lazy reference.

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?

Usage context is explicit: use this tool when openl_inspect_trace_frame returned a parameter with lazy: true, and only while the debug session remains alive. It also gives guidance on when to avoid withSchema due to its size. Slightly less than a 5 because it does not explicitly name alternative tools or say when not to use the tool, but the guidance is strong enough for correct selection.

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