get_pcg_graph_parameters

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

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world behavior, but the description adds substantial operational context: empty-list interpretation, the fact that meshes/densities/exclusions are welded inside, and the asset-vs-instance limitation with no headless override route. No annotation contradiction.

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 front-loaded with purpose and return shape, and most sentences earn their place. However, 'Read-only' duplicates the readOnlyHint annotation, and a few explanatory clauses could be tightened without losing meaning.

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 single-parameter read-only tool with full schema description coverage and no output schema, the description is complete: it covers purpose, when to use it, interpretation of empty results, asset-type boundary, and the return structure.

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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful semantic clarity beyond the schema by specifying it accepts a PCGGraph asset rather than a PCGGraphInstance, which helps prevent passing the wrong asset type.

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 and resource: 'List a PCG graph's user parameters with name, type and current value.' It also distinguishes itself from parameter-setting siblings by framing itself as 'the read' and noting 'Read-only.' An agent can tell what it returns without opening the schema.

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?

Gives a clear use case -- deciding whether a third-party graph can be reused without editing -- and a when-not boundary: it accepts a PCGGraph asset, not a PCGGraphInstance, and instance overrides must be ticked in the details panel. It does not explicitly name sibling alternatives such as set_pcg_graph_parameter for writes, so it falls short of full routing guidance.

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