particles-report

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It implies a read-only action through the word 'report', but it does not explicitly state that no mutation occurs, what output shape to expect, or how invalid or missing particle systems are handled. This leaves too much to inference for an agent.

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, scannable sentence with no redundant phrasing. It places the main action and object up front, making the intended behavior immediately obvious despite being short.

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?

The tool has no annotations and no output schema, so the description should provide enough context about return structure and required inputs. It does not describe the behavior of the required 'object' argument or the format of the reported RNA properties, leaving an agent without enough information to fully scope the call.

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 description gives only high-level scope guidance for the optional 'name' parameter ('one or all particle systems'). It is silent about the required 'object' parameter, which is enough to be problematic given the 0% schema-description coverage. An agent likely cannot determine what type of object value should be supplied or how it relates to the particle system name.

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 starts with a specific verb ('Report') and a concrete resource ('live RNA properties'), and immediately distinguishes the scope ('one or all particle systems'). This differentiates it from sibling tools like particles-add, particles-remove, and particles-set, which clearly do mutation rather than reporting.

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 conveys the key scope behavior: omit the optional particle system name to cover all systems. However, it never explicitly tells the agent when to use this tool instead of particles-systems or particles-set, and it gives no prerequisites or commands to avoid.

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