rna-get_property

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It explicitly states 'read-only', which is a key behavioral trait, but it does not disclose error handling (e.g., behavior on invalid path), return format, or any limitations. This is a minimal disclosure, leaving some ambiguity for the 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 concise sentence with no unnecessary words. It is front-loaded with the action and resource, making it immediately understandable. This is an ideal length for such a simple tool.

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 parameter, no output schema, read-only operation), the description covers the essential purpose and path context. However, it omits details about return values, error behavior, and whether properties can be nested, which would be useful for an agent but not critical for a basic getter. The example in the schema title fills some gaps.

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% (no description field), so the description must compensate. The description mentions 'by path under bpy.data' and the schema's title gives an example ('objects.Cube.location'), but the description adds little beyond that. It does not explain path syntax, expected value types, or edge cases, though the example is helpful.

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 action ('Read'), the resource ('data property by path under bpy.data'), and the read-only nature. This differentiates from sibling tools like rna-set_property (write) and rna-describe (describes properties), making the purpose unambiguous.

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 implies use for reading properties but does not explicitly mention when to choose this over alternatives (e.g., rna-describe or rna-search). It provides an example path but lacks explicit 'use this for...' or 'avoid when...' guidance, so it meets only the basic contextual bar.

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