get_resource_info

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false and openWorldHint=true, and the description adds meaningful context beyond that: loading resources and invoking getters may execute project code, explaining the non-read-only hint. It does not say what happens on failure or what 'bounded' means operationally, keeping it below 5.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the core action and followed by the safety caveat. No wasted words, though it is terse to the point of leaving gaps rather than being optimally informative.

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 explained, and the side-effect warning is a plus. However, with three undocumented parameters at 0% coverage, the definition is not complete enough for an agent to call it correctly without inspecting the schema manually.

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%, so the description must carry parameter meaning. It only hints at bounding via 'bounded' (likely maxProperties); projectPath, resourcePath, and the max cap of 200 are never explained.

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 ('Inspect') and resource ('bounded stored properties of a .tres/.res resource'), which distinguishes it from mutation siblings like create_resource and set_resource_properties. It does not explicitly contrast with inspection siblings such as get_scene_info or get_node_properties, so it stops short of 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?

The word 'Inspect' implies a read-style usage, but there is no explicit statement of when to pick this over get_scene_info, get_node_properties, or get_project_info. The agent must infer usage from the resource-file framing alone.

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