get_cop_geometry

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose side effects and behavior. It only states that it retrieves geometry, but doesn't explain whether the COP node is cooked, what data format is returned, or if there are performance implications. This is insufficient for a data-fetching tool.

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, clear sentence of six words, making it maximally concise. No filler or repetition.

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 tool's dependence on a specific path and the existence of multiple COP-related siblings, the description is too sparse. It lacks information about return value structure, error scenarios, and when to choose this over get_cop_info or get_cop_vdb.

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 one required 'path' parameter with zero description coverage. The tool description does not mention the parameter or its expected format (e.g., Houdini path syntax). The agent must infer its meaning solely from the tool name.

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 the specific verb 'Get' and names the resource 'geometry data' from a 'COP node', clearly distinguishing it from generic geometry tools like get_geo_summary or get_cop_info. However, it doesn't specify the exact nature of the geometry data (e.g., points, volumes).

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus sibling tools such as get_cop_info or get_cop_layer. The description provides no context about prerequisites, alternatives, or typical use cases.

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