get_geo_summary

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the output content (counts, bounding box, attribute names) but does not mention whether the operation is read-only (implied by 'Get'), whether it triggers a cook, what node types are valid, or error behavior. It adds some transparency over the name but lacks richer behavioral context.

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, efficient sentence that lists the key stats. Every word contributes to conveying the tool's purpose, with 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?

The tool is simple with one parameter and no output schema. The description gives a clear idea of the returned data but omits details on return format, required node type, and potential errors. For a basic summary tool, it is mostly adequate but not fully complete.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description does not explain the node_path parameter at all. The schema only provides a title and type, which is minimal. The description should ideally specify that node_path points to a geometry node or what kind of node is expected, but it does not, failing to compensate for the low schema coverage.

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 verb "Get" and its resource "geometry stats," and specifies exactly what is included: point/prim/vertex counts, bounding box, and attribute names. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_points, get_prims, get_bounding_box, and get_attrib_values, which focus on individual 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?

The description implies appropriate usage (as a summary for geometry stats) but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over more specific siblings, nor does it mention any exclusions or alternatives. For example, it does not say 'if you need individual point positions, use get_points.'

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