get_curve_table_info

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=false), so the bar is lower. The description adds the result shape (rows, key_count, mode, is_composite, parent_count) but discloses no behavioral traits such as permissions, error conditions, or whether the asset must be loaded.

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 tight lines with the purpose front-loaded before the return block. The Returns struct is verbose but earns its place since there is no output schema to carry it; nothing is redundant.

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?

For a one-parameter read-only getter with no output schema, the description supplies the entire return contract, which is exactly what is missing from the structured fields. Only the absence of usage/routing guidance keeps it from a 5.

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 100%, so the single parameter is already documented as a 'Full asset path to the UCurveTable (or UCompositeCurveTable).' The description adds only marginal context via is_composite/parent_count, aligning with the baseline 3 when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 ('Get info') and resource ('UCurveTable'), and the added detail ('each row's name + key count, plus mode') tells the agent what data comes back, distinguishing it from a key-value getter like get_curve_keys. It does not, however, explicitly name a sibling (e.g. get_data_table_info) to route the agent, so it stops short of a 5.

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 only says what the tool returns; it never states when to use it, when not to, or which alternative to pick (e.g. when to prefer get_curve_keys or the data-table variant). No prerequisites or context for invocation are given.

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