get_node_properties

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the read-only nature via 'List' and the filter behavior, but does not mention return format, error conditions, or whether all node types are supported. This is acceptable for a simple read operation but leaves gaps.

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, focused sentence with no redundancy. It front-loads the core purpose and includes the optional filter in a concise way.

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 tool with two parameters and no output schema, the description is mostly complete: it states the action, scope, and filter option. However, the unexplained 'category' parameter and lack of output format details leave gaps that affect completeness.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It mentions 'filtered by name prefix' but does not clarify which parameter (category or node_path) that refers to, and the 'category' parameter is completely unexplained. This is insufficient for an agent to correctly set 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 action ('List') and the resource ('a node's editor-visible properties'), with an additional filter option. It distinguishes from siblings like get_game_node_properties (runtime) and batch_get_properties (multiple properties) by specifying editor context and listing behavior.

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 implies usage (for listing editor node properties with optional prefix filter) but provides no explicit alternatives or exclusions. It does not mention when to use this over batch_get_properties or get_game_node_properties, leaving some ambiguity for an agent.

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