get_geometry_info

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

With no annotations supplied, the description carries the full disclosure burden and falls well short. "Get" implies a read, but it does not say whether evaluating geometry triggers a cook (a meaningful side effect in a node-graph environment), what happens if node_path is invalid, or how failures are surfaced. Only the bare resource being read is communicated.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler, which is structurally clean. But its brevity comes from under-specification rather than economy — nothing about the return shape, parameter meaning, or call conditions is included.

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 query tool with two parameters, no annotations, no output schema, and no parameter descriptions, the definition leaves too much unexplained. An agent would not know what a "summary" contains, what output_index selects, or how to recover from an invalid node_path.

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 both parameters are undocumented in the schema. The description names neither parameter: node_path's expected format (absolute path, relative path, node name) and output_index's meaning (which output of a multi-output SOP, and that it defaults to 0) are entirely absent.

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 verb ("Get") and a resource ("geometry summary") scoped to a SOP node, so the agent knows the general target. However, "summary" is undefined — it is unclear whether this returns point counts, bounds, attribute lists, or mesh types, and nothing distinguishes it from siblings like get_bounding_box, get_cop_geometry, or sample_geometry.

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 at all: no indication of when this summary is preferable to get_bounding_box, sample_geometry, or the other geometry-related siblings, and no stated prerequisites such as the node needing to be a valid SOP or already cooked.

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