Get morph geometry

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

Annotations already cover readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, but the description adds real value beyond them: it discloses the coordinate transformation semantics (x/y project coordinates, z relative to home story) and the per-item error behavior for non-morph inputs, which 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?

One dense sentence, but front-loaded with the purpose before the inline format sketch and the transform/error notes. The embedded JSON shape is verbose yet exactly the information an agent needs, so the length is largely earned.

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 output schema, the description carries the return-value burden and does so well, spelling out the element/vertex/face structure plus coordinate and error semantics. It leaves minor gaps (pagination or batching behavior across the 100-item cap, exact error payload shape) but is otherwise sufficient.

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 100%, so the schema already documents both the element GUID formats and the maxVertices truncation threshold. The description adds interpretation context for the returned vertices but nothing new about the parameters themselves, making 3 the correct baseline.

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 ('Returns the editable geometry of morphs') and immediately anchors it against siblings by noting it is the same format as the 'mesh' input of create_morphs/modify_morphs, which distinguishes it from get_element_3d_geometry and get_element_2d_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?

The round-trip framing ('same format as the mesh input of create_morphs / modify_morphs') tells an agent exactly when this is useful, and the note about per-item errors for non-morphs sets expectations for bad input. It stops short of explicitly contrasting with the other geometry getters.

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