get_lidar_point_cloud

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 does add useful behavioral context: return_mode defaults to artifact, output_path is an explicit .npz path for artifact mode, and inline_max_bytes caps encoded NPZ size. However, it does not explain side effects (e.g., whether an artifact is created), what 'typed point cloud fields' means concretely, or behavior on invalid prim paths.

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 concise and front-loaded: one clear purpose sentence followed by a compact argument list. Every line provides useful semantic information, and there is no redundant verbiage or repetition of schema defaults.

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?

The description is reasonably complete for a read-like retrieval tool with an output schema present, since it documents the key mode-related parameters. Still, the schema has six parameters with zero description coverage, and two parameters are left undocumented. With no annotations, the description should also clarify whether artifact mode creates persistent artifacts and whether command_id/idempotency_key are required for specific workflows.

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 is the only source of parameter meaning. It explains four of six parameters reasonably well: prim_path, output_path, return_mode, and inline_max_bytes. However, it completely omits command_id and idempotency_key, even though these are present in the schema and an agent may need to know whether they affect invocation.

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 a specific action — 'Get typed point cloud fields from a lidar sensor' — and identifies the resource (lidar sensor) and the kind of data (point cloud fields). It does not explicitly distinguish itself from related sibling tools like get_lidar_config or capture_image, but the resource and data type are specific enough for an agent to infer the primary purpose.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_lidar_config, create_lidar, or capture_camera_output. It does not state whether this is the preferred way to retrieve lidar data, nor does it mention any prerequisites or exclusions. The usage context is only weakly implied by the tool name and resource mention.

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