get_reflection_capture_properties

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive/closed-world, so safety is covered. The description adds real value beyond that by disclosing that InfluenceRadius applies only to Sphere and BoxTransitionDistance only to Box, and by spelling out the returned field set so the caller knows exactly which capture-type-dependent values come back.

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 the action and the property list, then a second block for the return shape. Every clause earns its place (the field enumeration and the return object both carry information), though the inline type-keying of properties into one long sentence is slightly dense.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description carries the full burden of describing the return value — and it does, giving the exact return object shape and field types. Combined with the property list and type-specific notes, an agent has everything needed to call and consume the result correctly.

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% and the single actor_name parameter is fully documented in the schema. The description never mentions the input parameter or its accepted forms (label vs internal name), so it adds nothing beyond the schema; 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 back) and resource (reflection-capture actor properties), then enumerates the exact fields returned and the Sphere/Box variants. It distinguishes itself from set_reflection_capture_properties by naming it as the round-trip counterpart, so an agent can place it 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?

The 'Round-trip reader for set_reflection_capture_properties' phrasing gives clear context for when to reach for it (to inspect what a setter applied), but it offers no explicit when-not guidance or mention of the neighboring spawn_*_reflection_capture / update_reflection_captures tools that could be confused with it.

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