get_cop_info

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the transparency burden. It clearly indicates a read-only 'get info' operation and lists the returned fields, but it does not disclose potential error conditions, whether the node must exist, or if any cooking occurs. This is adequate for a simple getter but lacks richness.

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, front-loaded sentence: 'Get info about a COP node: resolution, planes, depth.' No filler words, and the key information is immediately presented.

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 is simple with one parameter and no output schema. The description lists the three key pieces of information returned (resolution, planes, depth), which is sufficient for basic understanding. It omits error behavior but is otherwise complete for such a straightforward tool.

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 only defines 'path' with no description, and schema coverage is 0%. The description implicitly clarifies that 'path' refers to the COP node path via 'about a COP node', adding meaning. However, it does not specify path format or constraints, so the compensation is partial.

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 the tool gets info about a COP node with specific details (resolution, planes, depth). This distinguishes it from siblings like get_cop_geometry and get_cop_layer, which focus on different aspects.

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 alternatives. The description does not mention any exclusions or alternative tools for related operations, leaving the agent to infer usage solely from the name and description.

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