get_changed_parms

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It implies a read-only operation by saying 'Return,' and adds the performance nuance 'cheapest.' Yet it does not explain what 'changed' means (e.g., relative to default values), how results are returned, or potential edge cases like no changed parameters.

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 succinct and well-structured. It front-loads the primary action in the first sentence, adds a performance-oriented use-case phrase, and concludes with a necessary prerequisite. No unnecessary words.

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 simple one-parameter read-only tool, the description covers the core purpose and environment requirement. It does not describe the return format, but the absence of an output schema and the low complexity make this a minor gap; the tool is still reasonably usable.

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 0%, and the description does not mention the 'path' parameter at all. The schema only provides 'path' as a string, and while it is somewhat self-explanatory, the description adds no extra meaning about the expected node path format or resolution context.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'Return only the changed parameters for a node.' It clearly states what the tool does and hints at its niche (the cheapest 'what did I tweak' call), though it does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling parameter tools like get_parameter.

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 when to use the tool ('what did I tweak' call) and a prerequisite ('Requires a Houdini connection'). However, it does not mention when not to use it or compare it with alternatives such as get_parameter or get_parameter_schema.

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