get_node_properties

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden. It only states a read operation without disclosing side effects, error behavior, output format, or performance implications. The agent has no idea what it will receive on success or failure.

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 extremely short, but this is under-specification rather than efficient conciseness. It front-loads nothing of value because the single sentence adds no information beyond the tool name.

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?

With two required parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description provides no context about return values, parameter formats, or error cases. An agent cannot reliably call this tool or interpret its results.

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 coverage is 0%, and the description makes no mention of scene_path or node_path semantics. The agent is left to infer from parameter names alone, with no explanation of formats, required context, or relationships between the parameters.

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 'Gets node properties' essentially restates the tool name without adding specificity. It doesn't distinguish this tool from siblings like inspect_scene_tree or find_nodes, nor does it clarify what 'properties' means or what scope of node data is returned.

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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites, typical scenarios, or why this tool might be preferred over inspect_scene_tree or get_node_connections.

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