Get Node Properties

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior. It explicitly says 'Read', which clarifies that the operation is safe and non-mutating. However, it does not explain what 'common' properties are, how invalid property names are handled, or whether the response format differs between 'all' and 'specific' modes.

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, tightly worded sentence that conveys the core function without any filler. Every word is meaningful, and it is immediately front-loaded with the verb 'Read'.

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?

Given that there is no output schema and no annotations, the description is incomplete. It does not explain what the tool returns (format of properties), what 'common' properties are, or what happens if the nodeId is invalid. Sibling tools like get_text_content have more specific scope, but this description does not help the agent decide when to use it or what to expect from the response.

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 50%: the 'properties' parameter has a description, while 'nodeId' does not. The tool description adds minimal meaning beyond the schema—it reiterates the 'all or specific' behavior but does not clarify the nodeId parameter or compensate for its missing schema description. Since nodeId is self-explanatory, the score stays at baseline.

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 verb 'read' and the resource 'properties of a node', distinguishing it from sibling tools like set_properties (which writes). It also specifies the scope ('all or specific'), making its purpose 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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_text_content or get_node_tree. The description gives no contextual clues about appropriate scenarios, leaving the agent to infer usage solely from the tool name.

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