get_node_properties

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

Description indicates a read operation but does not explicitly state it is safe or non-destructive. No annotations exist, so the description should carry the full burden, but it omits potential side effects, permissions, or limitations.

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 concise sentences front-load the purpose and immediately explain the key mode parameter. No filler or redundant 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 simple read tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description covers the core functionality and mode distinction. It might lack return format details, but that is not critical. It is sufficient given the context of sibling tools.

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 covers all four parameters with descriptions, providing a baseline of 3. The description adds value by explaining the two mode options in more detail ('overrides returns only non-default values, effective returns all stored values'), which goes beyond the enum list.

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?

Description clearly states verb 'Read' and resource 'properties of a single node in a scene'. It distinguishes from sibling tools like get_scene_tree by specifying node properties. The mode explanation adds specificity.

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?

Description implies usage for reading node properties but lacks explicit guidance on when to use 'overrides' vs 'effective' or when to choose this tool over alternatives. No exclusions or alternative tool names are mentioned.

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