kura_get_kura_properties

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only restates the action 'Get', which is already in the tool name, and fails to mention error handling, authentication, output format, or the effect of the optional filter parameter.

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 concise sentence with no filler and is front-loaded. However, it is so brief that it borders on tautology with the tool name.

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?

No output schema, no annotations, and a nested filter parameter indicate the tool has more complexity than is addressed. The description does not explain what properties are returned, how filtering affects results, or how this tool relates to the sibling property getters.

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 50%: the 'instance' parameter has a description and the nested 'names' field has one, but the 'filter' object itself is undocumented. The tool description adds no parameter context, so it does not compensate for the coverage gap.

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 'Get system properties from a Kura instance' clearly identifies a read operation targeting system properties. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like kura_get_framework_properties or kura_get_extended_properties, leaving ambiguity about what distinguishes 'system' properties.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of use cases, prerequisites, or scenarios where system properties are preferred over framework or extended properties.

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