get_expression

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden but provides minimal behavioral insight. It doesn't disclose if this is a read-only operation, what happens if the expression doesn't exist (e.g., error vs. null), or any performance/rate limits. The description only repeats the basic action without adding context beyond what's implied by '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 a single, direct sentence with no wasted words. It front-loads the core action ('Get the expression') and specifies the target ('from a layer property'), making it easy to parse quickly. Every part of the sentence contributes essential information.

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?

Given no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficient for a tool with 3 required parameters. It doesn't explain what an 'expression' is in this context, what the return value looks like, or error conditions. For a retrieval tool in a complex domain (layer properties), more context is needed to use it effectively.

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 schema fully documents parameters (compId, layerIndex, propertyPath). The description adds no additional meaning beyond implying these are needed to locate the expression. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage, but doesn't enhance understanding (e.g., explaining propertyPath format beyond the schema's example).

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 action ('Get') and the target resource ('expression from a layer property'), making the purpose understandable. It distinguishes from siblings like 'set_expression' or 'remove_expression' by focusing on retrieval. However, it doesn't specify what an 'expression' entails in this context (e.g., code snippet, value), leaving some ambiguity.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an existing expression), compare to similar tools like 'get_layer_info' for broader data, or specify scenarios where this is appropriate. The agent must infer usage from the name and parameters alone.

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