mmar_get_bendpoints_for_relationclass_instance

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It clarifies that bendpoints are 'intermediate waypoints on a connection line,' which adds domain context, but it does not mention session requirements, return format, or error behavior. For a read operation, this is adequate but not rich.

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 two concise sentences. The first sentence immediately states the action and resource, and the second provides a useful definition of bendpoints. Every word earns its place.

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 simple getter tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description is largely complete. It specifies the input (relationclass instance UUID) and the result (bendpoint instances). It does not detail edge cases or return structure, but the simplicity of the tool reduces the need.

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 one parameter (relationclass_instance_uuid) with a description, giving 100% coverage. The tool description adds no further syntax or format details beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 clearly states the action ('Get all bendpoint instances') and targets a specific resource ('for a specific relationclass instance (connection)'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_relationclass_instance or create_bendpoint by specifying exactly what is retrieved.

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 implies usage: when you need bendpoints for a relationclass instance. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or provide alternatives, such as get_relationclass_instance for connection details or create/update/delete bendpoint tools.

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