tdx-attributes-get

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses the return format ('attribute IDs, names, types, and choices') which is valuable, but doesn't mention authentication requirements, rate limits, error conditions, or whether this is a read-only operation (though 'Get' implies it). For a tool with no annotations, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.

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 perfectly concise - two sentences that each earn their place. The first sentence states purpose and scope, the second explains the return value and practical application. No wasted words, well-structured, and front-loaded with the core functionality.

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 no annotations and no output schema, the description provides adequate but incomplete context. It explains what the tool does and what it returns, but doesn't cover authentication, error handling, or operational constraints. For a metadata retrieval tool with 3 parameters, this is minimally viable but leaves important contextual gaps.

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%, so the schema already documents all three parameters thoroughly. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema. According to guidelines, when schema coverage is high (>80%), the baseline score is 3 even without parameter details in the description.

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 action ('Get custom attribute definitions'), specifies the target resource ('for a TDX component'), and provides concrete examples of components ('e.g. tickets, assets, CIs'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by focusing on metadata retrieval rather than data manipulation, which is evident from the sibling list containing primarily CRUD operations.

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 context by stating 'needed for creating/updating items with custom attributes', suggesting this tool should be used before those operations. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this versus alternatives or provide any exclusion criteria. The guidance is helpful but not comprehensive.

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