get_positioning_info

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of disclosure. It clearly states that coordinates are in GLOBAL space and 'already transformed by the object's Placement,' which is a crucial behavioral detail. It also lists what the tool returns (center, normal, axis, radius, endpoints). However, it does not explicitly mention side effects or error behavior, though 'Get' implies a read-only operation.

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 well-organized into a summary, usage note, args, and returns. Every sentence adds value: the global-coordinate note, the alternative tool reference, and the parameter clarification. Nothing is wasteful or redundant.

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 complexity and the presence of an output schema, the description covers all essential aspects: purpose, usage context, distinguishing from get_topology, parameter handling, and return content. It is sufficiently complete for a read-only getter with a well-defined schema.

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 input schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It explains the 'element' parameter with its allowed values ('face', 'edge', or 'vertex') and clarifies that 'element_index' is 0-based and should be found via get_topology. The other two parameters (doc_name, obj_name) are not explained, but their names are self-explanatory in context. This is partial compensation, not complete.

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 verb and resource: 'Get detailed global-coordinate spatial info for a specific face, edge, or vertex.' It also distinguishes from a sibling tool by saying 'Use this instead of get_topology when you need precise positioning data for alignment or assembly.' This is clear and specific.

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 provides explicit when-to-use guidance: 'Use this instead of get_topology when you need precise positioning data for alignment or assembly.' It also tells users to 'use get_topology to find indices' for the element_index parameter, offering a concrete workflow.

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