get_evaluator_property

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new context: reflection-based access and the reachability constraint that only node struct properties (not instance data) are readable. It also names the returned shape, which is valuable given there is no output schema.

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?

Front-loaded with verb+resource, followed by scope limits, the sibling alternative, and the return shape. Three tightly packed sentences with no filler; every clause carries information.

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?

For a reflection-based read with full schema coverage and annotations covering safety, the description supplies the remaining pieces: read-only intent, reachability limits, the write counterpart, and the return fields. Nothing an agent needs to invoke it correctly is missing.

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 tree_path, property, and evaluator_index in detail. The description adds no additional parameter-level syntax or format meaning beyond that, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb (Read) and a precisely scoped resource (one property of a tree-scoped evaluator node of a StateTree asset), and explicitly names a limitation (only node struct properties, not instance data). It also distinguishes itself from the sibling set_evaluator_property, so an agent can separate it from get_evaluator_info and set_evaluator_property without opening schemas.

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?

It routes the agent to the alternative for the opposite operation ('Write it with set_evaluator_property'), which is the key decision point. It doesn't explicitly contrast with get_evaluator_info for broader reads, so it stops short of full when/when-not coverage.

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