lom_get

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It clearly states this is a read operation and describes the return dictionary. However, it doesn't disclose edge cases like invalid paths, permission requirements, or whether missing properties yield errors or null values.

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 compact and front-loaded with the core action, followed by a concise Args/Returns structure. Every sentence contributes without repetition or filler.

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 tool's simplicity (one parameter, no annotations) and the presence of an output schema, the description covers the essential invocation details and return shape. It lacks usage context versus siblings, but that gap is already scored in usage_guidelines and doesn't undermine basic callability.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It does meaningfully explain the single parameter: 'Dotted LOM path starting with 'song', 'app', or 'song.view''. This adds real semantic value beyond the bare 'path' string in the schema, though exact value formats and examples are absent.

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') with a clear resource ('property value by LOM path') and gives a concrete scope ('starting with 'song', 'app', or 'song.view''). This distinguishes it from most siblings by name/mechanism, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with get_track or get_session.

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 the sibling getters, describe, or others. The allowed path prefixes imply a read context, but there are no explicit conditions, exclusions, or alternative tool recommendations.

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