Game Get Node Info

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the agent knows this is a safe, non-mutating read operation. The description adds no additional behavioral context beyond the file notation, such as whether it returns failures on invalid paths or how errors surface. With annotations covering the safety profile, this is adequate but not enriched.

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 short sentence with zero wasted words. It front-loads the core purpose. However, given the tool's flexibility (compact vs full modes, property filtering), a bit more guidance could be justified, making it efficient but slightly under-specified for its feature set.

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 don't need explanation. With good annotations and 100% schema coverage, the description needn't do much heavy lifting. Still, for a tool that supports two detail modes and optional property filtering, the description offers minimal guidance on how these features interplay, leaving some gaps for the agent to reason through.

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 100%, so all three parameters (nodePath, detail, propertyNames) are already documented. The description itself adds no parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema provides; it does not clarify how propertyNames interacts with detail modes or give format examples. Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema carries the documentation load.

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 'Get compact or full node info' clearly states a verb ('Get') and a resource ('node info'), and it mentions the compact/full detail modes. It distinguishes reasonably from siblings like game_get_ui, game_get_scene_tree, and game_get_errors by focusing on node information specifically, though it doesn't explicitly differentiate itself from those alternatives.

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 usage (querying node info) but provides no explicit when-to-use guidance or exclusions. It doesn't mention when to prefer compact vs full detail, or how it differs from related siblings like game_get_scene_tree or game_get_ui. The brief phrase 'compact or full' hints at a usage choice but doesn't elaborate.

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