get_spline_points

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive). Beyond that, the description adds genuinely useful context: points are returned in local space, in the same space set_spline_points writes, which prevents a coordinate-space mistake. It doesn't mention pagination or limits, but the added space disclosure is real value.

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 paragraphs, front-loaded with the core action and immediately following with the counterpart relationship. The inline return-type listing is somewhat verbose given the prose already summarizes the fields, but it earns its place since no output schema exists.

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?

With no output schema, the description compensates by inlining the full return shape (count, closed_loop, indexed points). Combined with annotations covering the safety profile and complete param coverage, an agent has what it needs; the only minor gap is component-selection semantics for multi-spline actors.

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 (actor_name) with 100% schema coverage, so the schema does the heavy lifting and the baseline is 3. The description notes the actor is 'named' and targets a USplineComponent, but it doesn't explain how the component is selected when an actor has multiple spline components, which is the one ambiguity left.

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 (Reads) and resource (control points of a named actor's USplineComponent), and explicitly positions itself as the 'reader twin of set_spline_points'. An agent can distinguish it from the write counterpart and from sibling readers like get_river_spline_points or get_landscape_splines 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?

Naming it the 'reader twin of set_spline_points' tells the agent when to use it (to inspect what the setter wrote) and implies the read/write division of labor. However, it does not explicitly rule out the other spline-reading siblings or state prerequisites, so it stops short of full when/when-not guidance.

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