pointcloud-report

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

There are no annotations, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It adds the word 'live' to suggest current/dynamic RNA values, but it does not explain whether this is read-only, what data is included, what 'RNA properties' means, or what the output format is.

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 a single concise sentence that is easy to scan and front-loads the main action. It is not bloated, though it sacrifices necessary detail for brevity.

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 tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description is too thin. It does not specify what the report contains, how results are presented, or any operational context such as whether live data can be refreshed or queried by data-block name versus object reference.

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%, and the description does not explain the name_or_object parameter beyond what the schema title already states. It adds only the vague target 'point cloud' but not what kinds of names or objects are accepted or how the object is resolved.

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 uses a specific verb ('Report') and resource ('a point cloud'), clearly indicating this tool retrieves live RNA property information. It distinguishes itself somewhat from sibling tools like pointcloud-list and pointcloud-set, though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from pointcloud-attributes.

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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as pointcloud-attributes or rna-get_property. The description implies a reporting purpose but gives no explicit context, exclusions, or recommendations.

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