get_landscape_spline_control_point

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds non-obvious semantics on top: connected_segment_count = 0 marks a dangling point that draws nothing, which is a genuine behavioral insight not present in the annotations or schema.

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 purpose and routing are front-loaded in the first two sentences, with the return-shape block appended. It is dense but every part earns its place; no filler or restatement of the 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?

There is no output schema, and the description compensates with an explicit Returns block enumerating every field and its type. Combined with annotations covering safety and the routing to siblings, an agent has everything needed to call it correctly.

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%, and the schema already documents both the optional landscape_name (defaults to first found) and control_point_index (required index into ControlPoints). The description adds only the notion of reading 'ONE' point by index, so this is the baseline 3 where 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 precise verb and resource ('Read ONE landscape spline control point by index') and enumerates the fields returned (location, rotation, half-width, falloffs, connected_segment_count). It explicitly distinguishes itself from get_landscape_splines (component-level counts) and pairs with set_landscape_spline_control_point, so an agent can place it against siblings without reading schemas.

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?

Names the alternative reader (get_landscape_splines) and states that it only returns component-level counts, telling the agent when this tool is the only viable choice. It also frames the relationship to set_landscape_spline_control_point, giving clear usage context rather than leaving selection to inference.

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