Get Curve CVs

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, establishing a safe, read-only operation. The description adds value by specifying that positions are returned as [x, y, z] arrays in world space. No contradictions with annotations.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the action and resource. Every word serves a purpose: 'Query', 'CV positions', 'NURBS curve', 'offset/limit pagination', 'Returns CV positions as [x, y, z] arrays in world space'. No wasted or redundant information.

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 presence of an output schema (implied) and comprehensive annotations, the description covers the core functionality, pagination, and output format. It does not mention error handling or prerequisites (e.g., curve existence), but for a read-only query tool, the information is sufficient for an AI agent to select and invoke 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 has 100% description coverage, meaning parameters (node, limit, offset) are well-documented. The description reinforces the pagination concept ('offset/limit pagination') and mentions 'world space' which is not in the schema, adding slight value. However, it adds minimal new semantic meaning beyond what the schema provides.

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 specifies the action ('Query'), resource ('CV positions from a NURBS curve'), and additional details ('with offset/limit pagination' and 'Returns CV positions as [x, y, z] arrays in world space'). It clearly distinguishes this tool from siblings like curve.info, which likely provides general curve information.

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 for paginated CV queries by mentioning offset/limit pagination. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., curve.info for total CV count) or provide 'when not to use' guidance. The context is clear but lacks explicit exclusions.

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