get_cop_geometry

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden and discloses essentially nothing: not whether it is read-only or triggers a cook, not what the return value looks like (data vs. reference), and not the format of the geometry. Only the implicit safety of the verb "Get" gives any behavioral signal.

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 single sentence is front-loaded and contains no filler, so there is nothing to trim. But it is under-specified rather than concise — the brevity comes at the cost of missing information an agent needs.

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?

With no annotations, no output schema, and 0% parameter documentation, the description would need to do all the work and instead does almost none. For a two-parameter tool with a non-obvious output_index and an unclear return type, it leaves out what the agent most needs to know.

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 mentions no parameters at all. node_path is at least self-descriptive by name, but output_index (default 0) is completely unexplained — an agent cannot tell whether it selects among multiple COP outputs, which is critical to invoking correctly.

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 a specific verb (Get) and resource (geometry representation) scoped to a COP node, so the basic action is inferable. However, "geometry representation" is vague — it does not say whether this returns raw geometry data, a reference/handle, a path, or metadata — and a sibling named get_geometry_info creates an obvious ambiguity the description does nothing to resolve.

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, no stated prerequisites (does the COP node need to be cooked?), and no distinction from get_geometry_info or get_geometry_info-like siblings. The read-from-COP context is implied only by the tool name itself.

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