viewer_get_properties

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint. Description adds valuable context: the data comes from properties.json, not the viewer; the tool returns an index when called without pnt_ids. No contradictions with annotations.

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 short paragraphs, front-loaded with the core purpose. Every sentence adds value; no wasted words. Highly efficient.

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 presence of an output schema, description need not detail return structure. It covers dual behavior and data source. Could mention error handling or prerequisites, but for a read-only tool with one optional param, it is sufficiently complete.

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 0%, so description fully explains the single parameter pnt_ids: optional, triggers property retrieval when provided, or returns a lightweight index when omitted. This meaningfully compensates for the lack of schema description.

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?

Description clearly states it reads element properties from properties.json, with specific verb 'reads' and resource 'element properties (name, model, psets)'. Distinguishes from siblings by specifying the data source and dual behavior (index vs. full properties).

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 says when to use with pnt_ids and without, and clarifies the data source is NOT the viewer or IFC. No explicit when-not or alternatives to sibling tools, but the context is clear enough for selection.

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