find_nearest_point

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

No annotations are present, but the description discloses dual-path behavior (Point or None), the NO_UNDO trait, server-side apply_response_cap, and the exact fields returned for both cases. It lacks error/permission details, but is substantially transparent.

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 description is compact and well-structured with bullet points. Each line provides distinct, valuable information about parameters, return values, or behavior without 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?

Given the absence of an output schema, the description appropriately specifies the exact return contract for both Point and None cases and notes the response cap. Minor omissions around ctx/node_path semantics and error handling prevent a perfect score.

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?

The description adds critical meaning for position (must be [x, y, z]) and max_distance (default 1.0, used as max_radius), but leaves ctx and node_path unexplained. With schema coverage at 0%, this is a partial compensation that leaves clear gaps.

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?

The description opens with a specific operation, '最近点查询' (nearest point query), and specifies the return type 'Point | None'. It clearly distinguishes this from sibling geometry tools by focusing on spatial nearest-point search with distance constraints.

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?

It provides clear usage conditions: position must be [x, y, z], max_distance defaults to 1.0 and maps to geo.nearestPoint's max_radius. It does not explicitly discuss alternative tools or when not to use it, so it stops short of a 5.

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