entity_points

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose that the tool provides key points and lists the kinds of points, which adds context beyond the name. However, it does not disclose behavior for unsupported entity types, error handling, or coordinate format. This is minimal but not misleading.

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 sentence that is front-loaded with the core purpose and lists the point types. The second clause adds a useful use case without unnecessary detail. Every word contributes meaning.

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?

Although the tool is simple (one parameter) and has an output schema, the description does not specify which entity types are supported or what 'key points' means for complex entities. The vague 'connect geometry without math' is not sufficient to fully understand the behavior, but it is not severely inadequate.

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 a single required 'handle' parameter with no description coverage. The tool description mentions 'entity' but does not explain what the handle should be, how to obtain it, or its expected format. With 0% schema coverage, the description fails to compensate for the missing parameter semantics.

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 tool returns key points of an entity, listing specific types (ends/mid/center/radius/vertices). This distinguishes it from sibling query tools like entity_length or get_extents, though it does not use an explicit verb like 'returns' or 'gets'.

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 phrase 'connect geometry without math' implies a use case for constructing geometry directly from entity key points, but it does not explicitly mention when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any exclusions. This is implied usage rather than explicit guidance.

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