Get Attributes

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the behavioral load. It implies a read-only operation via 'Read', but does not disclose session targeting, error behavior, idempotency, or any other traits an agent would need to invoke it confidently.

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 wasted words. While it is extremely terse, it is appropriately concise for a tool whose parameters and return values are covered by the schema and output schema.

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?

The output schema exists and the input schema has full coverage, reducing the burden on the description. However, the description still lacks usage guidance and sibling differentiation, leaving an agent without enough context to choose this tool confidently over alternatives like set_attributes or get_scene_info.

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 100%, so the input schema already fully documents all three parameters. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema provides, making the baseline score of 3 appropriate.

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 'Read attributes of a node' states a specific verb (read) and resource (attributes of a node), making the basic action clear. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like set_attributes or get_scene_info, leaving the agent to infer when this tool is the right choice.

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 when-to-use guidance, no conditions for selecting this tool over alternatives, and no mention of prerequisites or related tools. It is a bare statement of function with no routing context.

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