get_particle_info

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already signals this is a safe read operation, and the description is consistent with that annotation. However, the description adds no behavioral context beyond what the annotation provides—no mention of what settings are returned, whether the system parameter is required, or what happens if the object has no particle system.

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 filler words. It is appropriately short for such a narrow retrieval tool, though the brevity contributes to the lack of parameter detail.

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?

With an output schema present, return values may be defined elsewhere, but the tool description still fails to explain required inputs or provide usage context. The undocumented parameters and lack of sibling differentiation make this incomplete for reliable invocation, even though the tool itself is simple.

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% and the description does not explain either parameter. 'Object' and 'system' are ambiguous: object could be a scene object name or a particle system name, and system is not clarified as an optional particle system identifier. The agent cannot determine correct parameter values from the description alone.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Get particle system settings.' It clearly distinguishes itself from mutating siblings like set_particle_property and add_particle_system because it is a retrieval operation. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from other get_* info tools, though the particle system scope makes that implicit.

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?

No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention that set_particle_property is for modifying settings, that add/remove_particle_system manage particle systems, or that this is the read-only counterpart. The agent is left to infer usage from the name and sibling list.

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