get_prim_intrinsics

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full transparency burden. It discloses that the operation is NO_UNDO, returns a structured error on out-of-bounds access, and passes through server-side 'apply_response_cap'. This goes beyond a bare minimum by revealing error behavior and side-effect constraints.

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 three sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, and every sentence adds value: purpose, key parameters, error behavior, and response capping. No filler or repetition 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?

Given 4 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is not fully complete. It lacks explanations for 'ctx' and 'node_path', and does not describe the return structure or format. While it covers error behavior and response limits, key context is missing for an agent to operate confidently.

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 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It clarifies 'prim_index' as the target and 'names' as an optional filter, but it does not explain 'ctx' or 'node_path'. Partial compensation is provided, leaving two parameters undocumented.

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 it queries intrinsics for a specified prim_index, using the verb '查询' (query) and naming the specific resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by focusing on intrinsics and adding contextual flags like 'add-geometry-export-and-measure' and 'NO_UNDO'.

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 through '仅查询' (only query) and mentions optional subset filtering with 'names', but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or provide exclusions. Usage context is inferred rather than directly stated.

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