find_nearest_point

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

With no annotations, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It adds the useful context that coordinates are in world space, but omits critical behaviors such as return value format, behavior on empty geometry, error handling, or whether the point index or position is returned. This leaves the agent guessing about side effects and output.

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 a single sentence with no redundant words. It is front-loaded with the main action and resource. For a tool with such a simple signature, this economy is appropriate, even though content depth is lacking.

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 tool has two required parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, so the description must provide comprehensive context. It only states the basic purpose and world-space coordinate system. It fails to explain return values, error conditions, node_path interpretation, or any prerequisite state (e.g., cooked geometry). This is severely incomplete for an agent to invoke the tool 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?

With 0% schema description coverage and no descriptive text, the parameter semantics are almost entirely undefined. The description mentions 'position' but does not clarify the array order (e.g., x,y,z) or units. 'node_path' is completely unexplained, and the description adds no meaningful information about either parameter beyond their names.

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 ('Find') and resource ('nearest point to a given position in world space'), clearly distinguishing it from siblings like get_points which returns all points. The scope is unambiguous and immediately conveys the tool's core function.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites, such as requiring a cooked geometry, nor exclusions for cases where get_points or other query tools might be more appropriate. The single sentence only states what it does, not when to choose it.

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