sample_node_properties

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

Annotations only say readOnlyHint=false and openWorldHint=true; the description explains why — getters are executed and the game is stepped forward but left paused, so the agent understands the side effect is process-state advancement rather than data mutation. It also characterizes the return payload ('bounded typed values and numeric/vector component summaries'), which the annotations do not cover.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the action and scope, followed by return shape and side effects. No filler or restatement of the tool name.

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?

With an output schema present, return values need not be spelled out, and the description covers the session requirement, side effects, and value bounds well. The remaining gap is the physics/process stepping mode, a meaningful choice for a 7-parameter, high-side-effect tool that is undocumented in both schema and description.

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 14% — only sessionId is documented — so the description must carry the load, and it only partially does. It usefully restates the 1–10 property cap (matching maxItems) and implies frame stepping, but leaves the physics/process 'kind' enum, samples vs intervalFrames interaction, and timeoutMs unexplained anywhere.

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 precise verb and resource — 'Sample 1–10 named properties on a live node across stepped frames in a paused debug session' — which is clearly distinct from the static sibling get_node_properties and from sample_performance. The scope (bounded property count, multi-frame sampling, paused-session requirement) lets an agent pick it without opening the schema.

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 prerequisite context ('in a paused debug session') implies when the tool is applicable, and the note that it advances the game signals it is not a free read. However, it never names an alternative (e.g. get_node_properties for a one-shot value) or states when not to use it, so routing still requires inference.

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