get_custom_attribute_values

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

No annotations present, so description must cover behavioral traits. It mentions default session usage, which is useful. But it does not disclose error handling, return format, or effects of missing items. Adequate but not comprehensive.

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?

Extremely concise: three sentences covering purpose, object_type values, and session hint. No superfluous words, front-loaded with action and object.

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?

Lacks output schema and does not describe return format. For a simple read tool, it covers basic usage but omits what the result contains (e.g., attribute-value pairs). Adequate but could be more complete.

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 has 0% description coverage, so description must compensate. It clarifies object_type values and object_id as internal ID, but session_id is only mentioned as default. Adds some meaning but leaves session_id partly undocumented.

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?

Clearly states it gets custom attribute values for a specific item, naming the resource and action. Lists valid object types, helping differentiate from siblings like 'set_custom_attribute_values' and 'list_custom_attributes'. However, it does not explicitly contrast with siblings.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. While it implies a read operation for specific items, it lacks when-not or alternative suggestions, which is a gap given the many sibling tools.

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