studio_get_properties

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only states that properties are read, but does not mention permission requirements, error behavior (e.g., if instance does not exist), or whether the operation has side effects. The description is too minimal to fully inform 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, but it is overly brief. While conciseness is valued, the lack of critical information makes it less effective. It could be expanded slightly without losing efficiency.

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 (2 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is barely adequate. It fails to cover parameter semantics, usage context, and behavioral details, making it incomplete for an agent to use effectively without additional assumptions.

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%, meaning the description adds no meaning beyond the input schema. The description does not explain the purpose or format of instancePath and propertyNames, leaving the agent reliant solely on parameter names and types. The description should compensate for low coverage but fails to do so.

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 serialized properties for a single Instance' clearly states the verb (read) and resource (serialized properties for a single Instance). It distinguishes from sibling tools like studio_set_properties which write, and studio_patch_instances which modifies.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of when not to use it, prerequisites, or exclusion scenarios. With siblings like studio_get_tree and studio_find_instances, more context would be helpful.

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