get_river_spline_points

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered structurally. The description adds the return shape (label, count, world-space XYZ points), which is genuinely useful, but discloses nothing about coordinate frame, spline type handling, or behavior for a missing/invalid label.

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 short lines, front-loaded with the action and followed by an explicit Return shape. No filler sentences and no redundancy.

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 simple read tool with no output schema, the description supplies the critical missing piece, the return record shape. Remaining gaps are minor: no note on coordinate space conventions beyond "world points" or error behavior for an unknown label.

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?

With a single required parameter at 100% schema description coverage, the schema fully documents water_body_label as the AWaterBody actor label. The description's "water body's spline path" only loosely reinforces this and adds no format or lookup details beyond the schema.

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 back") and resource ("a water body's spline path as world points"), which is more precise than the generic sibling get_spline_points. It does not, however, explicitly name the sibling it is not (get_spline_points, get_landscape_spline_control_point) to route the agent.

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 offers no when-to-use or when-not guidance and never mentions an alternative such as get_spline_points or get_landscape_spline_control_point. The agent is left to infer appropriate usage from the name alone.

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