runtime_get_node

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 read-only nature ('Read') and 'live' (runtime) context, but omits crucial details such as what happens if the node path is invalid, whether the game must be actively running, any error behavior, or the format of the returned properties. This is a significant gap for a runtime 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?

The description is a single, clear sentence that front-loads the verb and resource. There is zero wasted verbiage, and it effectively sets expectations for what the tool does.

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?

This is a simple tool with one fully described parameter, but the lack of an output schema and annotations leaves uncertainty about the return structure and runtime prerequisites. The description is minimally viable for an agent to attempt invocation, but it does not fully prepare the agent for potential failures or response formats.

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 input schema already provides 100% coverage for the single 'path' parameter, including examples and the special case for scene root. The description adds no additional parameter semantics, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate since the schema carries the load.

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 action ('Read') and the specific resource ('live properties of a node in the running game'). It distinguishes itself from other read tools (e.g., read_scene, read_resource) that work on files rather than live runtime state, and from runtime_set_node which writes.

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 phrase 'in the running game' implies the tool is for runtime inspection, but there is no explicit guidance on when to use this versus other read tools, or when not to use it (e.g., when the game is not running). The usage context is implied rather than explicitly stated.

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