get_curve_info

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already establishes that this is a safe read operation, and the description is consistent with that. The description adds value by listing what information is returned, but it does not disclose additional behavioral traits such as prerequisites, errors, or how the curve object is identified.

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, front-loaded with the core purpose ('Get curve info') followed by a clear list of returned attributes. There is no redundancy or filler.

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 tool is simple and has an output schema plus a readOnlyHint, so the return structure does not need to be explained. However, the description does not clarify the 'object' parameter or provide usage guidance, leaving an important gap for an agent to invoke the tool correctly.

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 schema has one required parameter, 'object', with no description, and schema description coverage is 0%. The tool description does not explain the parameter format, valid values, or whether it expects a name, path, or ID. An agent is left to infer that 'object' refers to a curve, but without explicit guidance this is a meaningful gap.

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 specific verb and resource: 'Get curve info,' and further specifies the exact data categories returned: spline count, point count, dimensions, and bevel settings. This clearly differentiates it from sibling getters like get_mesh_info, get_object_info, and get_world_info by focusing on curve-specific properties.

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 implies that this tool is used when an agent needs curve-related information, but it does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives such as set_curve_property or get_object_info. There is no mention of when not to use it or how it fits into a larger workflow.

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