kura_get_extended_properties

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It merely says 'Get', which implies a read-only operation, but it does not explain what 'extended system properties' are, what the output looks like, or any potential side effects or required permissions. The absence of any such context is a significant gap for an unannotated tool.

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, focused sentence with no redundant words, making it concise and front-loaded. It earns a high score for structure, though the brevity limits completeness.

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 ambiguity ('extended system properties') and the presence of several similar sibling getters, the description is incomplete. It does not explain the purpose of 'extended' properties, how to use the filter, or what output to expect, making it insufficient for an agent to select this tool confidently.

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 only 50% (only 'instance' has a description; 'filter' itself does not). The description does not compensate by explaining either parameter, leaving the agent to rely on the sparse schema. It adds no value beyond the schema and fails to clarify how 'filter' or 'groupNames' should be used.

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 gets extended system properties from a Kura instance, using the specific verb 'Get' and a specific resource. However, it does not distinguish itself from sibling tools like kura_get_kura_properties or kura_get_framework_properties, so it lacks explicit differentiation.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus the many sibling getter tools. There is no mention of alternatives, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving agents to guess which property getter is appropriate.

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