runtime_get_property

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

Annotations already signal readOnly and non-destructive. The description adds useful behavioral context: selectors resolve fresh every call, so no re-fetch is needed, and the tool returns both the value and the matched/resolved path. This goes beyond the annotation safety profile without contradicting it.

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?

Three tight, front-loaded sentences cover purpose, addressing, and live-resolution behavior. Every sentence contributes information; there is no padding 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 read-only runtime property accessor, the description gives enough for an agent to make a correct basic call: choose path or selector, provide a property, and expect value+resolved path. The missing 'under' parameter and lack of exact value formatting keep it from being fully 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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must carry the parameter-load. It explains path, class, name, text, and nth, but it omits 'under' entirely and does not clarify what kind of value 'property' expects beyond the tool's name. This is a clear gap for a tool with seven parameters.

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 opens with a concrete verb and resource: 'Read a property of a node in the RUNNING game.' It precisely defines the addressing modes (path or live selector) and emphasizes that it targets the running game, distinguishing it from tree/snapshot-oriented siblings like get_scene_tree and get_remote_tree.

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?

It clearly states when to use this tool: when you need a property's current value from the live game, and it gives practical guidance to prefer fresh selectors over stale @Node@NN paths. It does not explicitly name alternatives or say when not to use it, but the usage context is clear.

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