get_pattern_points

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It explicitly discloses that the call does not mutate the MD scene and warns that curve point mutation mapping is unverified, giving agents valuable side-effect and data-freshness information.

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?

Two short sentences front-load the return data, then cover the caveat and side-effect profile. No filler or redundant schema 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?

For a one-parameter getter with no output schema, the description gives the key output type and confirms non-mutation, but it omits any usage guidance or parameter semantics and leaves the unverified curve-mapping caveat ambiguous. This is an adequate minimum but with clear gaps.

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 coverage is 0% and the description does not explain pattern_index beyond its name and title. The single parameter's role is inferable from context, but the description adds no meaning about how pattern_index is interpreted.

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 identifies the output as point coordinates in mm and IDs, making the tool's retrieval purpose clear even without an explicit verb. It contrasts with mutation siblings by stating it does not mutate the MD scene, but it doesn't explicitly differentiate from other getter tools like get_pattern_info or get_pattern_topology.

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?

No guidance on when to prefer this tool over alternatives is provided. The non-mutation note implies it is safe to call but does not state prerequisites or when point coordinates are needed versus information from get_pattern_info or get_pattern_topology.

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