properties-get

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

The description reveals the operation is a read, which implies non-mutating behavior, but it does not go further. Since there are no annotations, the description carries the burden, yet it says nothing about output shape, failure modes, or whether the read only returns values or also metadata. It is adequate but not rich.

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 immediately communicates the operation and provides illustrative examples. There is no fluff or redundant repetition of 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?

Given the tool's simplicity—one required parameter, no output schema, and a focused read operation—the description is nearly sufficient. It could be more complete by mentioning what is returned or how errors are handled, but the core usage is clear enough for this low-complexity tool.

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 schema provides only a title for the single 'path' parameter; the description adds meaningful examples of valid path structures and the 'object:' syntax. This compensates for the 0% schema-level description coverage, though it does not explain percent-encoding details, which are left to the schema title.

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 uses a clear verb ('Read') with a specific resource ('a stable Properties path') and concrete examples such as 'object:Cube/location' and 'object:Cube/idprops/foo'. This distinguishes it from sibling mutation/report tools by emphasizing stable-path reads.

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 about when to use this tool versus siblings like properties-report or properties-object_report. There is no when-to-use or when-not-to-use context, and no alternative tools are mentioned.

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