Read parameter modes

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description reinforces this with 'Read-only'. It adds context about what is returned (modes, raw strings) but does not describe error behavior, performance, or other side-effect details. The added value is moderate, consistent with the calibration example where annotations cover the safety profile.

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 three sentences long, front-loaded with 'Read-only' and a clear summary of what is reported. Every sentence earns its place: the first defines the behavior, the second gives usage scenarios, and the third explains the optional filter parameter. No fluff.

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 the output schema exists and annotations cover safety, the description adequately explains what the tool does and when to use it. It could mention error cases or examples of modes, but the provided information is sufficient for an agent to select and invoke correctly. The `keys` parameter is not discussed in the description, but the schema covers it.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value beyond the schema by explaining the practical meaning of `non_default_only` ('parameters that would be lost in a plain value copy') and the overall purpose of mode reporting, which helps interpret the parameters.

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 reports parameter modes (CONSTANT/EXPRESSION/EXPORT/BIND), evaluated values, and raw expression strings. It uses a specific verb ('report') and resource ('parameters of a node'), and distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_td_node_parameters by emphasizing mode/expression awareness.

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 description explicitly states when to use the tool: 'Use this to faithfully serialize a network for round-trip editing, diffing, or debugging.' It also explains why (evaluated value hides expression/export bindings). It does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when NOT to use, but the context is clear.

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