properties-object_report

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It says 'Report' which implies read-only, but it does not explicitly state that it does not modify anything, nor does it mention any limitations, side effects, or prerequisites. The term 'live' suggests state access but is not elaborated. This is insufficient for a tool with no annotation support.

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 superfluous content. It is concise and to the point, though it could be more informative within the same length. Structure is effective for brevity but lacks detail.

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 has 4 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is underspecified. It does not explain what the report returns in detail, how the include flags affect output, or when this tool is more appropriate than siblings. The description alone is insufficient for an agent to correctly invoke and interpret results.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It mentions 'data', 'modifiers', and 'custom props' which map roughly to include_data and include_modifiers, but it does not explain the 'include_values' parameter. The description adds minimal meaning beyond the schema's parameter titles, leaving the boolean flags unexplained and uncontextualized.

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 'Report' and the resource: 'all live RNA properties for an object, its data, modifiers, and custom props'. This is specific and distinguishes it from generic siblings like 'properties-report' by scoping to object-level with data, modifiers, and custom props. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from similar reporting tools, so it falls short of a 5.

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. It does not mention exclusions, context, or when to prefer it over 'properties-report', 'rna-describe', or other property tools. The only hint is that it's object-specific, but that is implicit, not explicit.

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