properties-report

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

Annotations are absent, so the description carries all the burden. It only states 'Report' which implies a read operation but does not disclose side effects, permission requirements, or what 'live' means (e.g., dynamic updates, thread safety). It also omits any error conditions (e.g., invalid paths) or return semantics beyond the name.

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 sentence with no redundancy. It is front-loaded with the core purpose, but it is perhaps too sparse to cover necessary details, though this is not a fluff issue—more under-specification. It earns a high score for having no wasted words.

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?

For a tool with two parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is inadequate. It does not explain what 'live RNA properties' entails, what the output report contains, how the path parameter work with types (e.g., object vs data), or what the include_values updates. Missing crucial context for effective use.

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 for parameter meaning. It only indirectly mentions 'path' via 'target' but fails to explain the optional 'include_values' flag and its effect. The schema provides an example for path, but the description adds negligible value over the schema titles and does not address any parameters explicitly.

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 a defined target ('any stable Properties path target'). It distinguishes itself from siblings like properties-object_report (which is object-specific) and properties-get (which likely fetches individual properties), making its scope explicit.

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 versus alternatives (e.g., properties-get or specific object reports). While the description implies a comprehensive listing, it does not mention exclusions, prerequisites, or alternative tools for getting single properties or object-constrained reports.

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