get_parameter_schema

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden alone; 'Get' implies a safe read and 'all parm templates' clarifies the scope of the result, which is useful. However, it says nothing about permissions, failure modes, or cost, leaving the behavioral profile thin for an annotation-free tool.

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?

One tight sentence with the operation front-loaded and zero filler. It is perhaps slightly too terse for a tool with an undocumented parameter, but structurally efficient.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and the tool is a simple single-parameter read. Still, the undefined node_path semantics leave an agent without enough to call it confidently.

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 single required parameter node_path has 0% schema description coverage, so the description must compensate for the gap. It never explains the node path format or syntax, adding no meaning beyond the bare parameter name.

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 states a specific verb (Get) and resource (full parameter schema / all parm templates) scoped to a node, which an agent can distinguish from get_parameter. It does not explicitly name or contrast with sibling tools, so it falls short of a 5.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no mention of alternatives such as get_parameter or list_file_parms, and no prerequisites described. The implied context ('for a node') is the only hint.

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