get_points

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full behavioral burden and falls well short. Beyond implying read-only access and the existence of pagination, it says nothing about permissions, whether missing nodes error or return empty, how the default count of 200 applies, or what the response looks like for unrequested attributes.

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 or repetition. It is efficient, though the brevity is under-specification rather than disciplined concision given the tool's five parameters.

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 five parameters, zero schema documentation, no annotations, and no output schema, the definition leaves an agent guessing on nearly every call decision. A tool this parameterized needs at least a note on node_path format, group scoping, and attribute selection.

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% across five parameters, so the description must compensate and does not. 'Pagination' loosely maps to start/count, but node_path, group, and attributes are never explained — an agent cannot tell whether attributes filters the output or selects which columns are fetched.

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: 'Read point positions and attributes', which tells an agent exactly what data comes back. It does not distinguish itself from siblings such as get_geometry_info or get_bounding_box, and 'points' is not qualified by any domain object, so an agent must infer the geometry context.

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 only usage signal is 'with pagination', which hints at large result sets but never says when to choose this tool over the many sibling get_* readers. No prerequisites, no exclusions, and no guidance on when to page versus request everything at once.

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