get_particle_info

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already indicates a safe read operation, but the description adds no behavioral context beyond that—no mention of what settings are included, whether the object must exist, or error conditions. It does not contradict the annotation, but it doesn't enrich it either.

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 short sentence with no filler, but it is under-specified. It achieves brevity at the cost of clarity, so it is acceptable but not exemplary.

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 an output schema and two parameters, the description is minimal. It doesn't explain which particle system is being queried, how system selection works, or the relationship to add_particle_system/set_particle_property. The agent would need to rely on the output schema and parameter names.

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?

The schema has zero descriptions for its parameters, and the description 'particle system settings' provides no additional meaning for the 'object' and 'system' arguments. The agent must infer their roles from names alone.

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 clearly states the tool retrieves particle system settings, using a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('particle system settings'). However, it lacks detail about which object/system and how it relates to sibling tools, so it earns a 4 rather than 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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like set_particle_property or get_physics_info. The description is a bare getter statement with no context about prerequisites or exclusions.

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