get_node_properties

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

Annotations already indicate read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior, so the description adds value by detailing what it returns (all non-default properties or specific ones if listed) and by specifying it operates on saved scene files. This goes beyond the annotations without contradicting them.

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 extremely concise, consisting of two sentences that lead with the core action. Every sentence contributes useful information without any fluff or repetition.

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?

For a simple read tool with no output schema, the description adequately explains the return behavior (all or specific properties) and distinguishes from runtime access. It could optionally mention the return format, but given the simplicity and annotations, 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?

The schema covers 100% of parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful context for the 'properties' parameter by explaining the behavior when omitted (all non-default) versus when provided (specific ones), which enhances understanding beyond the schema's brief field descriptions.

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 reads properties from a node in a saved scene file on disk, using the specific verb 'Read' and mentioning the resource type. It also differentiates from sibling tools by explicitly noting that runtime properties should be handled by evaluate_expression.

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 clear context: it reads static properties from .tscn files, not runtime state. It explicitly names an alternative tool (evaluate_expression) for runtime properties, but does not enumerate all other alternatives like set_node_properties for writing, which is implicitly clear from the name.

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