nifi_get_property_descriptor

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered structurally. The description adds useful context by naming the backing endpoint and the shape of returned data, but beyond that it discloses no further behavioral traits (e.g., token/rate behavior or behavior when the property name is invalid).

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?

Front-loaded with the key information and kept to two tight sentences with no padding. The endpoint detail is slightly extraneous but still earns its place by grounding behavior.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be spelled out, and annotations cover the safety profile. For a simple descriptor lookup with two params, the description supplies enough to call it correctly, with only parameter format guidance missing.

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% for two required parameters, so the description must carry the burden. It implies a single processor and a single named property, but adds no format, expected identifier style, or validity guidance for processor_id or property_name, leaving the agent to infer parameter meaning.

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?

States a specific verb+resource ('Descriptor for one processor property') and enumerates the returned fields (type, default, allowable values), so an agent knows exactly what it produces. It doesn't explicitly differentiate itself from the many list/get siblings, which keeps it short of a 5.

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?

Gives a concrete when-to-use condition: call it before setting a property whose valid values are unknown. That is genuinely actionable context. It stops short of naming an alternative tool, so it's clear context without exclusions.

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