get_mass_trait_property

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and non-open-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful context beyond that: it discloses the reflection/ExportText mechanism (implying text-serialized values) and enumerates the exact return shape, which annotations alone would not convey.

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?

Two lines, front-loaded with the action and scope, followed by the return contract. Every clause carries information with no filler.

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 no output schema, the description usefully enumerates the returned fields (config_path, trait_class, property_name, value, type), covering the main gap. It stops short of noting failure cases (e.g., trait not on config, invalid dotted path) for a reflection-based lookup.

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. The description's 'name or dotted path' phrasing restates property_name semantics from the schema and adds no new format detail, 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/read via reflection), a precise resource (a property of a trait in a Mass config), and the accepted property form (name or dotted path). The 'Read' framing cleanly separates it from the write counterpart set_mass_trait_property without needing to name it.

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?

Usage is only implied by the read verb; there is no explicit 'use this when...' or naming of alternatives such as list_mass_traits or set_mass_trait_property. An agent can infer it reads rather than mutates, but the selection condition against sibling inspection tools is left unstated.

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