get_geometry_data

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses key behavioral traits: pagination with a 500 limit, default behavior for points (attribute P), and the need to page using start. This goes beyond the schema and provides actionable operational details.

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 front-loaded with the primary purpose, followed by concise yet informative details on pagination, element, attributes, and prerequisite call. Every sentence earns its place 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?

For a tool with 5 parameters and no output schema or annotations, the description covers essential aspects: what it reads, how to handle large data, what to supply, and a recommended pre-step. It doesn't detail return format, but that is not mandatory without an output schema, and the context is sufficient for an agent to use it 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 has 0% description coverage, but the description adds meaning to most parameters: element specifies 'points' or 'primitives', attributes names with default P, limit capped at 500, and start for paging. Path is the only unmentioned parameter, but is self-evident from the tool's context.

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 function: 'Read actual attribute values from geometry.' It distinguishes itself from siblings like get_geometry_info by focusing on actual values rather than metadata, and explicitly references that tool as a prerequisite.

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?

Provides clear usage context: pagination instructions for large geometry, clear guidance on elements and attributes, and explicitly advises calling get_geometry_info first to discover available attributes. It doesn't explicitly exclude alternatives but the reference to the sibling tool implies the workflow.

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