get_properties

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior. It conveys that the operation is a read ('Get') and describes the serialization format (_type tags for Vector3, CFrame), which is valuable. However, it does not mention potential errors, permission requirements, or behavior when the properties parameter is omitted, leaving some gaps.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence that delivers the core purpose and a key output detail. Every word earns its place, with no unnecessary filler or repetition.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity, the description adequately covers the return format (serialized properties with _type tags), and the schema documents the parameters. It lacks explicit alternative guidance, but the sibling names make the tool's niche clear, so the context is largely complete for selection and invocation.

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 input schema provides 100% coverage with clear descriptions for both 'path' and 'properties', so the baseline is 3. The description does not add parameter-specific semantics beyond what the schema already states, so no upward adjustment is warranted.

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 clearly states the tool's function: 'Get serialized properties of an instance', with a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('properties of an instance'). It distinguishes from siblings like get_children and set_properties by focusing on reading property values, and adds useful detail about _type tags for complex types.

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?

No explicit guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention that it is for reading properties as opposed to listing children (get_children/get_descendants) or modifying properties (set_properties), leaving the agent to infer usage from the name and context.

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