Read parameter modes

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description reinforces read-only nature and adds behavioral details about what is reported (mode, value, raw strings). No mention of side effects, which is appropriate for a read operation.

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?

Two sentences plus a clause, highly efficient. Front-loaded with 'Read-only', followed by function, then use cases, then parameter tip. 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?

Given the tool's simplicity (3 params, output schema exists), the description covers purpose, usage, and filtering. Output schema handles return format, so no need to elaborate. Complete for an AI agent to select and invoke correctly.

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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds marginal value for non_default_only by repeating its schema description. For path and keys, no additional explanation beyond schema. Description adds context but not new parameter semantics.

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 tool reports per-parameter mode, evaluated value, and raw expression strings, with specific use cases like serialization, diffing, and debugging. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_td_node_parameters that likely only return values without mode info.

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?

Explicitly advises using this tool for faithful serialization and round-trip editing. Also explains when to set non_default_only to surface parameters that matter for round-trips. Does not explicitly name alternatives or state when NOT to use, but context is clear.

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