get_points

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool returns positions and optional attribute values, and that pagination is supported. However, it does not elaborate on pagination mechanics, potential cooking side effects, or exact return format, leaving room for more transparency.

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-loads the main action, and contains no filler. It efficiently states the purpose and key return content, making it highly scannable.

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 description provides a basic overview but omits details like pagination response structure (e.g., total count, next token), error conditions, and whether it triggers a cook. Given no output schema or annotations, these omissions leave the description incomplete for seamless use.

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%, so the description must compensate. It mentions 'pagination' (implying start/count) and 'optional attrib values' (implying attribs). However, it does not explain the exact meaning of start and count, nor the expected format for attribs (array of strings), which are critical for correct invocation.

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's action: 'Get point data with pagination.' It also specifies the return content ('positions and optional attrib values'), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_prims (primitive data) and get_attrib_values. The verb-resource pairing is specific and unambiguous.

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 retrieving point data with pagination, but does not explicitly state when to use it over alternatives (e.g., get_prims for primitives, get_attrib_values for attribute data). No exclusions or alternative references are provided, leaving usage guidance only implicit.

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