get_physics_layers

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses that the tool reads two specific properties and decodes them bit-by-bit with project physics layer names, implying a non-destructive operation. This is sufficient for a simple getter, though it doesn't detail edge cases or return structure beyond the decoding.

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, front-loaded sentence that conveys the core action and key detail about layer name decoding. Every word adds value with no redundancy.

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 no output schema, the description does hint at the output by mentioning bit-by-bit decoding with layer names, which suggests a mapping of bits to names. For a low-complexity tool with one parameter, this is reasonably complete, though it could explicitly state the return format.

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 one parameter (node_path) with no description, and schema coverage is 0%. The description only says 'of a node' without explaining the path format or expected syntax, leaving the agent to infer NodePath conventions. This fails to compensate for the missing parameter documentation.

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's function: 'Read collision_layer and collision_mask of a node' with a specific verb and resource. It also adds the unique decoding behavior with physics layer names, distinguishing it from siblings like set_physics_layers.

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 reading collision properties, which is clear from the verb 'Read' and the property names. It does not explicitly exclude alternatives or mention when to use set_physics_layers, but the read versus write contrast is evident.

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