get_landscape_splines

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine behavioral context beyond them: that this is an aggregate-only read that explicitly does not return per-point data, and that it doubles as a count oracle after spline mutations. It does not mention cost or cost of repeated calls, but the description earns credit for the scope limitation.

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 front-loaded sentences deliver the purpose, the quick-check framing, the count-oracle use, and the sibling hand-off; the Returns block is a compact field list. No sentence is filler.

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 spelling out the exact return shape (landscape_name, has_splines_component, control_point_count, segment_count). Combined with the sibling routing and the 100%-covered parameter, an agent has everything needed to call and interpret this 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 coverage is 100% and the single optional landscape_name parameter (with its 'defaults to first found' behavior) is fully documented in the schema. The description adds nothing about parameter syntax or semantics, which is the expected baseline 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+resource (summary of a landscape's spline component) and enumerates exactly what is returned: presence, control point count, segment count. It explicitly distinguishes itself from get_landscape_spline_control_point by declaring it returns no per-point data, so an agent can separate the two without opening a 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?

Names two concrete use cases (the quick 'is there a road/river network and how big' check, and the count oracle after adding/removing points) and routes the agent to the sibling tool for per-point position and width. Both the when-to-use and the when-to-use-something-else condition are explicit.

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