Get RootPart settings

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds a genuinely useful behavioral detail — the values are returned as human-readable names rather than raw identifiers — but says nothing about return format otherwise, which is acceptable given the lighter bar set by annotations.

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?

A single efficient sentence with the operation and the returned data front-loaded. It is well-sized, though the phrasing 'limb RootPart mode / velocity / init selections' is slightly list-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?

For a zero-argument read-only getter with no output schema, the description conveys what data comes back and in what form (human-readable names), which is largely sufficient. It stops short of describing the shape of the returned object or how it relates to reanim_set_root_mode.

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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so per the baseline a 4 is appropriate; there are no argument semantics to document and the description does not need to compensate.

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) and a concrete resource (limb RootPart mode / velocity / init selections), which is far more informative than the title alone. It distinguishes itself from the write-side sibling reanim_set_root_mode by using 'Read' versus 'Set', though it does not explicitly name that sibling.

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 description contains no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and never points to reanim_set_root_mode as the counterpart mutator or to other getters. An agent must infer the usage from the verb alone.

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