get_particle_info

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

With no annotations, the description carries full transparency burden. It correctly implies a read-only operation, but it does not disclose return format, error handling, or whether the node must be a GPUParticles type. For a simple read operation, this is adequate but not rich.

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, well-structured sentence that lists the exact items being read. There is no redundant or filler text, and it is front-loaded with the action verb.

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 tool's low complexity (one parameter, no output schema) and the read-only nature, the description gives the essential scope of what is read. It does not describe return values, but that is not critical for a straightforward read tool. It is reasonably complete for its purpose.

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% with one parameter. The description clarifies that node_path refers to the GPUParticles node to inspect, but it does not explain path format, constraints, or how the path is interpreted. Some meaning is added, but the single parameter could use more detail.

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 uses a specific verb ('Read') and clearly identifies the resource (GPUParticles node) and the specific data (emission settings, process material properties, color gradient stops). It does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools like get_node_properties, but its specificity makes its purpose clear.

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 the tool is for reading particle-related properties, but it provides no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, nor does it mention alternative tools. The usage context is inferable from the resource type and the sibling tools, but not stated.

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