get_meta_sound_node_property

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavioral detail beyond annotations: failure modes and the JSON return shape (type, has_value, value).

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 short and front-loaded, starting with the core action, then failure conditions, then the write alternative, and ending with a compact return shape. Every sentence adds value.

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 a single-field read tool with 100% parameter schema coverage, full safety annotations, and no output schema, the description supplies the necessary return shape and failure conditions. Nothing an agent needs to call 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 all three parameters (GUID format for node_id, FProperty name for property, MetaSound Source path restrictions for metasound_path). The description adds only the 'Configuration struct' framing and does not provide syntax or format details beyond the schema.

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 states a specific verb ('Read one field'), resource ('Configuration struct of a MetaSound Source node'), and scope ('by property name'), and it explicitly names the write sibling set_meta_sound_node_property. An agent can distinguish this from related tools like get_meta_sound_node_info or set_meta_sound_node_property without consulting 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 provides clear context for use (reading a single field by property name) and names the alternative write tool, plus states failure conditions when the node has no Configuration struct or the property is absent. It lacks an explicit when-not or a comparison to get_meta_sound_node_info, but the usage scenario is clear.

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