get_node_coordinates

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Get' implies a read-only lookup, but the description doesn't state whether the operation modifies state, how missing nodes are handled, or in what coordinate system results are returned. The output schema may cover return shape, but behavioral expectations are not disclosed.

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 with no filler and the core action is front-loaded. However, it is so brief that it omits usage and parameter guidance, so conciseness is achieved at the expense of necessary information. It is not verbose, but it is under-specified.

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, the output schema may document return values, but the description is incomplete for an agent deciding when to call it. There is no mention of optional parameters, default model behavior, timeout semantics, or how this relates to other coordinate-oriented tools. The tool has moderate complexity with 4 parameters, and the description does not adequately cover it.

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 adds no parameter-level meaning beyond 'specific node.' It doesn't explain the timeout or model_name parameters, nor clarify the role of instance_name versus node_label. The required parameter names are somewhat self-explanatory, but the description does not compensate for the complete lack of schema descriptions.

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 states a clear verb and resource: 'Get the coordinates of a specific node.' This is unambiguous about what the tool does. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools such as list_nodes or find_face_by_coordinate, so it earns a 4 rather than a 5.

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 like find_face_by_coordinate or find_edge_by_coordinate. It also doesn't explain prerequisites or scenarios where this tool is preferred. An agent must infer usage entirely from the tool name and schema.

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