tv_get_study_inputs

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so 'Read-only' adds no new safety information. The description does add useful behavioral detail about accepting a case-insensitive name substring, but it does not disclose behavior for no-match or ambiguous-match cases.

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 short, front-loaded with the core purpose, and uses three clear sentences without fluff. The 'Read-only' note is slightly redundant with annotations but costs one word and does not harm clarity.

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 single-study tool with fully documented parameters, the description covers enough: what it reads, how the study is identified, and what output content to expect. Minor gaps like ambiguity handling and return format details are acceptable given the schema coverage and annotations.

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 input schema has 100% coverage, with each parameter, including 'study' and 'filter', already described. The description adds no parameter meaning beyond lightly restating the 'study' parameter's matching behavior, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 ('Read') and resource ('one study's inputs'), and enumerates what is returned (human names, types, options, ranges). This unambiguously distinguishes it from related tools like tv_get_study_values or tv_set_study_inputs, even without naming them.

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 conveys that this is the read-only retrieval tool for study inputs, which implies when to use it versus tv_set_study_inputs. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or provide exclusion criteria, leaving the routing decision to inference.

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