get_resource_properties

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

With no annotations, the description provides basic behavioral context: it is a read operation ('Get') and returns properties with types. However, it does not disclose error handling for invalid resource types, performance implications, or the exact return structure beyond mentioning types.

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 with no filler words. It efficiently communicates the core function and result type.

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 a single parameter and no output schema, the description adequately states the purpose and indicates the output includes types. However, it could be more specific about the return format (e.g., list of property names, map with types) to fully compensate for missing output schema.

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%, with the type parameter already well-described in the schema (e.g., examples). The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline of 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 clearly states the verb 'Get', the resource 'serializable properties', and the scope 'for a resource type', with 'with their types' indicating output includes types. This distinguishes it from siblings like get_resource_types (lists types) and get_node_properties (node-specific).

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description implies a straightforward retrieval context but does not mention when not to use it or suggest other tools for different scopes (e.g., batch_get_properties).

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