get_pcg_node_properties

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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior, so the description only repeats 'Read-only.' However, it adds real behavioral context beyond annotations: properties are read 'via reflection,' the UPCGSettings object is serialized to JSON, and the exact return object shape is listed.

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 compact sentences plus a return-shape line. The core action and node-resolution rule are front-loaded, and every statement carries information without redundancy.

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?

There is no output schema, but the description supplies the return object keys, so an agent knows what it will receive. Combined with annotations covering safety and the schema covering parameters, nothing needed to invoke or consume this tool 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 both parameters are already fully documented, including the 'Input'/'Output' token handling. The description restates that node_name comes from get_pcg_graph_info but adds no new syntax or constraints, 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?

The description states a specific verb and resource: 'Reads every editable property of a PCG node's settings object.' It clearly separates this read operation from the sibling write tool (set_pcg_node_properties) and from get_pcg_graph_info, which it names as the source for node names.

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 gives clear context for when to use it: resolve the node by name from get_pcg_graph_info, or use the 'Input'/'Output' tokens for implicit endpoints. It does not explicitly state when-not to use it or name the write alternative, so it stops 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.