get_geometry_info

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that it accepts either a SOP path or a geometry container (using its display SOP), which adds behavioral context. However, it does not explicitly state read-only nature, potential side effects (e.g., cooking), or error behavior. The verb 'summarize' implies safety but lacks explicit confirmation, leaving some ambiguity.

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 sentences, no wasted words. The first sentence packs a dense list of output contents, and the second provides input flexibility and a use case. Front-loaded with the core purpose and immediately informative.

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?

The description covers the expected output (counts, bbox, attribute listings, groups), input flexibility, and the recommended use case. There is no output schema, so listing return categories is helpful. It does not cover error cases or performance implications, but given the tool's relative simplicity and clear scope, it is sufficiently complete for selection and invocation.

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 has zero description coverage, and the sole parameter 'path' is documented only by name and type. The description compensates by explaining that the path can be a SOP path or a geometry container, giving the agent clear guidance on what to pass. It adds semantic meaning beyond the schema, though it omits examples or exact path formats.

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 uses a specific verb 'summarize' and identifies the resource as 'a node's geometry', listing exact contents (counts, bounding box, attributes, groups). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_bounding_box, get_groups, and get_geometry_data, making its unique purpose evident.

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 gives a clear context for when to use the tool: 'verify what a network actually produced instead of judging from a render.' It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when-not-to-use, but the use case is well-defined and implies inspection rather than modification.

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