get_positioning_info

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds meaningful context beyond that: results are in global coordinates and 'the Placement is already applied', which tells the agent how to interpret returned values without extra transformation.

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 output fields and the sibling preference are front-loaded in the first two sentences before the Args block, and there is little waste. The field list (center, normal, axis, radius, endpoints) is slightly dense but relevant.

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?

An output schema exists, so return formatting need not be re-explained, and annotations cover the safety profile. The main residual gap is the undocumented doc_name/obj_name parameters, but overall an agent has enough to invoke this 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must carry the parameter burden. It explains element (face/edge/vertex) and element_index (0-based, indices obtainable from get_topology) well, but doc_name and obj_name are left entirely undocumented in both schema and description.

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 states a specific resource (one face, edge or vertex), the coordinate frame (global), and the exact payload returned (center, normal, axis, radius, endpoints). It explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling get_topology, so an agent can select it without opening either schema.

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?

It names the alternative explicitly ('Prefer it over get_topology for precise positioning before alignment or assembly') and gives the condition that selects the alternative ('call get_topology to find the indices'). The when-to-use and sibling routing are both explicit rather than inferred.

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