get_cop_info

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses important behavioral traits: that the operation may trigger a COP cook (side effect) and that the response passes through apply_response_cap (response modification). It also notes 'NO_UNDO' indicating no undo support. This is valuable context beyond a simple read operation.

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 concise, with the first line stating the core purpose and flags, and the second line adding return details and side effects. It avoids unnecessary filler, though the heavy use of technical jargon ('outputCableStructure', '反射探针') may reduce clarity for some agents.

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 no annotations, no output schema, and no parameter descriptions, the description is incomplete for reliable invocation. It does not explain the 'ctx' parameter, how to structure node_path, or what the 'reflection probe' means. While it lists return types, the missing param semantics and usage context make it insufficient for an agent to use 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?

The schema provides 2 parameters (ctx, node_path) with no descriptions, and the description does not explain their meaning or format. While 'node_path' is somewhat self-explanatory, 'ctx' is ambiguous and could refer to context or a Houdini context. With 0% schema coverage, the description should have compensated but fails to do so.

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 clearly states the tool's action ('读取' / read) and resource ('Copernicus 节点信息' / Copernicus node info). It also specifies the unique return data (input/output types, outputCableStructure, cable metadata), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_cop_geometry or get_cop_layer.

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 implies usage when needing node info or cable metadata, and mentions side effects (may trigger COP cook). However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives, nor does it provide any 'when not to use' guidance. The specificity of the return values gives some contextual hint.

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