monitor_properties

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds meaningful behavioral context by specifying that sampling occurs 'over several frames' and that it returns a 'sample series', which is not evident from annotations alone. It does not contradict annotations.

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 that begins with the verb 'Sample' and includes the key purpose. It is concise, with no redundant words, and every phrase earns its place.

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 tool has no output schema, four parameters with no descriptions, and no mention of failure conditions, return format details, or how the sample series is structured. The description is minimal and leaves significant gaps for an agent attempting to invoke this tool correctly, especially without parameter explanation.

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 has zero description coverage for all four parameters, so the description must compensate. It only vaguely references 'a node's property' and 'over several frames' without explicitly defining path, property, samples, or interval_ms. The numeric parameters and their units are left entirely implicit, which is insufficient.

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 samples a node's property over multiple frames in the running game, with a specific purpose of detecting movement or changes. This verb+resource+context structure distinguishes it from siblings like runtime_get_property, which reads a single value, and render_probe, which deals with rendering.

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 implies when to use it ('detect movement/changes') and clearly conveys its temporal sampling nature, but it does not explicitly mention alternatives or situations where it should not be used. This gives clear context without exclusions, matching a score of 4.

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