get_by_path

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

With no annotations provided, the description must disclose behavioral traits, but it only states the resolution action and output. It does not mention read-only safety, error handling (e.g., missing path), or any side effects. This is insufficient for a tool without annotation support.

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 sentence, front-loaded with the verb and resource, and includes a concrete example. Every word earns its place—there is no fluff or redundancy.

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?

The tool is simple (one parameter, no output schema), and the description covers the core purpose and parameter format. However, it lacks usage context, return value details (beyond 'ref'), and error behavior, which are more critical given the absence of annotations and output schema.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It does clarify the 'path' parameter by specifying it is a 'dotted instance path' and provides an example. However, it does not elaborate on edge cases (e.g., leading dots, case sensitivity) or the exact format expected beyond the 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 uses a specific verb ('Resolve') and clearly states the resource ('dotted instance path') with an illustrative example ('game.Workspace.Part') and the output ('a node with a ref'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_root (no path) and get_children (operates on a ref).

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 (when you have a dotted path) through its example and phrasing, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_root or search. No exclusions or alternative scenarios are mentioned.

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