get_blendspace_samples

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description still adds real context: samples are returned in index order, num_samples is included, and per-axis input smoothing under interpolation is reported. It does not disclose behavior for missing/invalid assets or performance on large blendspaces, so it is useful but not exhaustive.

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?

Two sentences plus a Returns block, with the read-only and alternative-tool guidance front-loaded after the core purpose. The field list appears both in prose and again inside the Returns object, which is a small redundancy, but nothing is padded.

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?

There is no output schema, and the description compensates by enumerating the return payload fields, so an agent knows what it will receive. It stops short of covering failure modes (nonexistent path, empty blendspace) or the relationship between the flattened fields and the nested samples array.

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?

Only one parameter and schema coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents blendspace_path as the full asset path. The description adds only marginal meaning by clarifying that both UBlendSpace and UBlendSpace1D assets are accepted, which is the expected baseline-3 outcome when 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?

States a specific verb (read) and resource (every sample of a UBlendSpace/UBlendSpace1D), plus exact scope and ordering (index order) and the fields returned. It explicitly covers both blendspace variants, so an agent can distinguish it from sibling getters like get_anim_sequence_info without opening the schema.

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?

It names the read-only nature and routes mutation to three concrete alternatives: add_blendspace_sample, edit_blendspace_sample, remove_blendspace_sample. The when-to-use-this vs when-to-use-those split is explicit rather than inferred.

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