editor_get_node_properties

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

The description discloses that this is a read operation, implying non-destructive behavior, and introduces the 'editor-visible' scope. However, it does not detail error handling, output structure, or whether inherited properties are included. With no annotations, the description carries the full burden but remains minimal.

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 one concise, front-loaded sentence that directly states the verb and resource. Every word contributes meaning, with no redundancy or irrelevant details.

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 is simple with one well-documented parameter, but the description does not explain the return format or usage context, especially since no output schema is provided. It conveys the core purpose but leaves gaps for an agent needing full operational details.

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 coverage is 100% and the sole parameter 'path' is described as 'Node path to inspect' in the schema itself. The tool description adds no further context about path format or usage, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 identifies the resource as 'editor-visible properties of a node,' making the tool's purpose clear. The 'editor-visible' qualifier also differentiates it from siblings like runtime_get_node or type-specific read tools such as read_camera, establishing a distinct scope.

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 offers no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention editor context, exclusions, or comparable tools, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name alone.

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