get_type_attributes

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It correctly implies a read operation, but does not explicitly state read-only nature, permissions, or any side effects. It adds some behavioral context by listing example attributes but lacks full transparency.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with purpose, and contains no redundant or irrelevant information. Every word contributes to understanding the tool's function.

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 the lack of an output schema, the description does not specify the return structure (e.g., format of attributes list). It mentions human-readable names and units but could be more explicit about what fields are returned. The description is adequate for a simple tool but leaves some ambiguity about the response format.

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% (both parameters described). The description adds value beyond schema by listing example attribute names for the filter parameter and contextualizing the output for fitting, but does not provide significant new parameter-level detail beyond what the schema already offers.

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 verb 'get' and the resource 'all dogma attributes for a type', and provides concrete examples (CPU, powergrid, capacitor, etc.) that distinguish it from sibling tools like 'get_type' (type info) and 'get_type_effects' (effects).

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 implies usage for fitting ('Essential for fitting'), but does not explicitly state when to use or not use this tool versus alternatives, nor provide any exclusions or context for sibling tools.

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