Ask Operator: Pick Point

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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint, so the description carries the behavioral burden and does so well: ESC is a normal answer returning cancelled:true with AutoCAD's reason, exceeding COM_CALL_TIMEOUT returns timed_out:true with the prompt abandoned on AutoCAD's side, and refusals (empty prompt, headless) are enumerated. This is exactly the kind of non-obvious operational detail an agent cannot infer from the schema.

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?

Purpose and return shape are front-loaded, and the error/timeout semantics follow compactly. The trailing 'Pack: settings · lean: no' is terse to the point of being opaque, costing a little clarity, but the body itself is dense with no wasted sentences.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be spelled out, yet the description still highlights the two fields an agent must branch on (cancelled, timed_out) plus refusal modes and timeout semantics. For a one-parameter interactive tool, nothing needed to invoke or handle it correctly is missing.

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 coverage is 100% and the single prompt parameter is already documented with an example, so the baseline is 3. The description adds a genuine constraint beyond the schema — an empty prompt is refused — which is a validation rule not expressed in the input schema.

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 names the underlying call (`Utility.GetPoint`) and states precisely what it returns: the WCS x, y (and optional z) the operator clicks. That is a specific verb+resource that separates it from siblings like user_select, point_from_snap, and point_intersection, which derive points differently.

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?

It states the operating context clearly: it requires a live operator, is refused when headless (capability: "interactive_prompt"), and requires a non-empty prompt. It does not explicitly point to alternative point-acquisition tools (e.g. point_from_snap) when no operator is available, so it stops short of full when/when-not routing.

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