get_staged_patch

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

Annotations are not provided, so the description carries the burden. It says 'Read', which indicates a non-mutating operation, but it doesn't disclose details such as whether the patch is returned in a specific format, what happens if there's no staged patch, or any rate limits. It adds minimal behavioral context beyond the verb itself.

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 concise sentence, about 12 words, with no redundancy. It is front-loaded with the verb 'Read' and quickly identifies the target. Perfectly concise.

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?

With an output schema present, the description needn't explain return values, but it still lacks context on preconditions (e.g., a staged patch exists), side effects, or the meaning of instance_id. Given the sibling tools like apply_staged_patch and discard_staged_patch, it is clearly part of a workflow, but the description doesn't elaborate. Overall, adequate but with notable gaps, earning a 3.

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%, but there is only one parameter (instance_id) that is optional and nullable. The description doesn't explain what instance_id refers to (likely the instance identifier) or how it affects the result. Given the low coverage, the description should compensate, but it adds no param information. The baseline for low coverage is below 3, but the single param is simple, so a 3 seems appropriate.

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 tool reads (Read) a patch and artist-facing summary waiting for approval, distinguishing it from apply_staged_patch and discard_staged_patch. It is specific about the resource (staged patch) and its state (waiting for approval), though it doesn't explicitly mention the return type.

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 phrase 'currently waiting for approval' implies it's used before applying or discarding a staged patch, which provides context. However, it doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives like get_blender_job, so it falls short of a 5.

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