game_get_property

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

With no annotations, the description is the main source of behavior. It usefully clarifies that this reads live runtime state ('running game') rather than saved scene data, and 'get' implies no mutation. However, it does not state side-effect-free behavior explicitly or describe what happens when a path/property is invalid.

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, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. The verb, target, and addressing mechanism are all immediately visible.

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 low-complexity getter with two well-documented parameters, the description is mostly complete: it specifies runtime scope (running game), node addressing (path), and the requested data (property value). It lacks return-format or error details, but these are minor for such a simple read operation.

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?

Input schema already documents both nodePath and property with examples, and coverage is 100%, so the description adds no new parameter-level meaning. Baseline 3 is appropriate because the schema does the heavy lifting.

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?

States a clear, specific operation: get a property value, scoped to any node in the running game, addressed by path. This distinguishes it from write-focused siblings like game_set_property, though it does not explicitly name alternatives such as game_get_node_info.

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?

No guidance on when to prefer this tool over related siblings like game_get_node_info, game_eval, or game_set_property. The description only states what the tool does, leaving the agent to infer selection criteria from the tool name.

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