svn_propget

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

With no annotations provided, the description must fully convey behavioral traits. It only states the basic action, omitting details such as behavior when a property does not exist (error vs. empty), whether the operation is recursive, or how multiple paths are handled. This leaves significant behavioral ambiguity.

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, efficient sentence with no wasted words. It front-loads the core purpose but could benefit from additional context without becoming verbose. Given its brevity, it scores high but loses a point for slight under-specification.

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 (3 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is insufficiently complete. It does not explain return values, edge cases (e.g., missing property), or operational constraints. A more complete description would address these aspects briefly.

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 67% (two of three parameters have descriptions). The description adds minimal value beyond the schema, simply reiterating that it reads a property. The schema already defines parameter names and constraints (e.g., pattern for 'name', path descriptions). Thus, the description does not significantly enhance parameter understanding.

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 ('Read'), the resource ('working-copy property'), and the scope ('from explicit paths'). It effectively distinguishes this tool from its siblings, such as 'svn_propset' which is for writing properties.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It lacks prerequisites, exclusion criteria, or comparisons to related tools like svn_propset or svn_info. This omission leaves the agent without decision-making support.

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