runtime_get_property

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

Annotations already declare read-only and non-destructive behavior. The description adds meaningful behavioral details: selectors resolve fresh each call, no need to re-fetch volatile @Node@NN paths, and the resolved path is returned. 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?

Two focused sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and containing essential addressing details without fluff. Every sentence earns its place, and the structure aids quick comprehension.

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 read-only tool with good annotations and no output schema, the description covers addressing modes, live-resolution behavior, and return value (value + resolved path). It lacks error-handling details but is sufficiently complete for most use cases.

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?

With 0% schema coverage, the description compensates by explaining most parameters: path, class, name, text, nth, and property. It clarifies selector syntax and the default of nth=0. However, it omits any explanation of the 'under' parameter, which remains ambiguous.

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?

Clearly states it reads a property of a node in the running game, with specific addressing methods (path or live selector). Distinguishes from sibling tools like set_property (write) and call_method by framing it as a read operation on runtime nodes.

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?

Specifies the running-game context and describes when to use path vs selector addressing, emphasizing that selectors resolve fresh each call. Does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the context is clear enough for the agent to select this over static/project tools.

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