get_envelope_points

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

readOnlyHint=true already declares the safety profile, so the description's added value is the return shape: points carry time, value, shape and shown, and volume envelopes add value_db plus scaling. That is genuinely useful since there is no output schema, but it omits ordering, behavior on empty envelopes, and any note about the required track_index.

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 docstring-style Args/Returns layout is front-loaded and reasonably short, but the 'envelope_name: Envelope name.' line is pure waste. The Returns section does earn its space given the absence of an output schema.

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 two-parameter read tool with no output schema, describing the returned point fields covers the biggest gap. However, leaving track_index completely undocumented means an agent cannot know what that required integer refers to without guessing.

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 carries the full burden, yet envelope_name is restated tautologically as 'Envelope name' and track_index is never mentioned at all. Neither parameter's expected format or indexing base is clarified anywhere.

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?

States a specific verb and resource (get all points from an envelope), which is enough to distinguish it from mutators like add_envelope_point or clear_envelope. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from close siblings such as get_envelope_point_count or get_fx_envelope_points, which would have earned 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?

There is no when-to-use guidance and no mention of alternatives, even though get_envelope_point_count and get_fx_envelope_points sit in the same family and are obvious substitutes. The agent must infer selection criteria from the name alone.

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