plasticity_evaluate_curve_segments

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so 'This is read-only' merely restates them. The description does add real behavioral context by specifying that parameters follow each segment's start-to-end direction and that positions are 'exact native' values, but it omits the 256-sample cap, revision/staleness semantics, and error behavior.

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?

Three tight sentences with the core operation front-loaded, followed by the parameter convention and usage note. No filler, though the read-only restatement of the annotations is 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?

There is no output schema, and the description partly covers returns (native positions and unit tangents) but not their structure. The revision parameter, which is required and likely guards against stale curve data, is entirely unexplained, leaving a meaningful gap for a tool that reads current model state.

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 clarifies the normalizedParameter semantics (0 to 1, following segment start-to-end direction), which the schema alone does not convey, but it says nothing about bodyId, segmentEntityId, the 1-256 samples range, or the required revision string (a concurrency/staleness token).

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?

Names a specific verb (Evaluate) and resource (native positions and unit tangents on Wire segments) with a clear scope of normalized parameters 0 to 1. It is distinguishable from siblings like list_curve_endpoints or list_curve_directions, though it does not explicitly contrast itself with them.

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 states the tool is 'useful for placing or verifying local curve edits' and points to plasticity_list_curve_directions for the direction convention, which gives implied context. However, there is no explicit when-not guidance or comparison against alternative inspection tools such as inspect_curve_structure or list_curve_vertices.

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