ros2_get_parameters

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the operation is a read ('Get parameter values') but doesn't disclose what happens if the node doesn't exist, if a parameter name is invalid, or whether it returns all parameters when 'names' is empty. The description is minimal and doesn't add behavioral context beyond the basic read operation.

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 concise and front-loaded with the core purpose. The Args section is a bit redundant with the schema but adds useful examples. No wasted words, though the format is more like a docstring than a tool description.

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?

The tool has an output schema (not shown in detail) and only 2 required parameters, both explained. However, for a read operation with no annotations, the description doesn't cover error cases, return value semantics, or how it differs from ros2_get_nodes (which might also expose parameters). It's adequate for a simple getter but lacks edge-case guidance.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It does explain both parameters: node_name is 'Full name of the node (e.g. '/robot/diff_drive_controller')' and names is 'List of parameter names to read'. This adds meaning beyond the raw schema (which only has titles 'Node Name' and 'Names'), but it doesn't provide details like parameter name format, wildcard support, or behavior with empty lists.

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: 'Get parameter values for a specific ROS2 node.' It identifies the resource (ROS2 node parameters) and the verb (get). It distinguishes itself from siblings like ros2_set_parameters (which writes) and ros2_get_nodes (which lists nodes), though it doesn't explicitly name them.

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 context: it's for reading parameter values from a specific node, which is distinct from setting parameters (ros2_set_parameters) or listing nodes (ros2_get_nodes). However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention any prerequisites like node availability or parameter existence.

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