get_node_parameters

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states 'Get parameters,' which implies a read operation, but it does not disclose return format, behavior for non-existent nodes, or whether runtime parameters are included. This is a minimal disclosure.

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, clear sentence with no redundant words. It effectively conveys the tool's purpose and scope.

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 simple one-parameter tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description is sufficient for an agent to know what to provide and what the tool does. It could mention the return format (e.g., a dictionary of parameter names and values), but the lack is not critical given the simplicity.

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 coverage is 100% with one parameter (node_name) described as 'The name of the node.' The description's reference to 'specific ROS 2 node' aligns with the schema but adds no extra meaning beyond it. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema fully documents the parameter.

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 uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('parameters for a specific ROS 2 node'), clearly distinguishing it from siblings like set_node_parameter (set) and list_ros_nodes (list nodes). It is concise and unambiguous.

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 phrase 'for a specific ROS 2 node' implies the tool is for a single node, not for listing all parameters across nodes. However, it does not explicitly mention when to use this tool versus alternatives like set_node_parameter or list_ros_nodes, leaving the usage context implicit.

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