get_parameters

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does meaningful work: it discloses substring matching against name and label, live-value semantics, the inclusion of defaults as an optional report, and an implicit result cap. It does not define the cap value or describe the return structure, which keeps it from a 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?

The description is tightly organized: a one-sentence purpose summary, a brief contextual comparison, then a compact Args block. The 'flame/wind/buoy' example illustrates the batching idea without bloating the text. Every sentence contributes useful information.

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 tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description is nearly self-sufficient: it covers selection semantics, batch behavior, live-value distinction, and all parameters. The main gaps are the undefined 'cap' value and the lack of any indication of the response shape, which an agent would need for reliable parsing.

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%, but the description compensates fully by explaining every parameter: node_path is the node to read, patterns are substrings matched against name/label with an omit-for-everything behavior, and include_defaults adds the report of whether each value is still the default. This goes well beyond the bare schema types and defaults.

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 specific verb and resource: 'Read many parameter values at once, matched by name or label substring.' It then explicitly contrasts itself with set_parameters (batch counterpart) and get_node_card (live values vs defaults), so an agent can clearly distinguish it from relevant siblings.

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 gives clear usage context: use this when you want several unrelated parameter groups in one call, and explains why it differs from get_node_card. It does not explicitly say 'use get_parameter for a single parameter,' but the batch-vs-single distinction is strongly implied by the 'batch counterpart' framing.

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