find_nearest_point

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does not disclose whether the operation is read-only, what the return format is, whether distances or point indices are returned, how ties or no-result cases are handled, or any performance constraints.

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 short and front-loaded, with the core purpose stated first followed by per-argument clarifications. The args block is slightly redundant for 'node_path' but overall the text is appropriately sized and each sentence serves a purpose.

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 and no annotations, the description should explain return values or result shape, coordinate space, and node-type applicability. It omits all of these, leaving key context missing for an agent that needs to invoke and interpret 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds useful meaning for 'position' as [x, y, z] and for 'max_results' as max nearest points to return, but 'node_path: Node path.' is essentially a restatement of the schema title and adds no real semantics.

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: 'Find the nearest point(s) to a given position.' It clearly conveys the core operation but does not differentiate this tool from related geometry-query siblings such as sample_geometry, get_points, or find_usd_prims.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no prerequisites, and no exclusions. The purpose implies a use case, but the description provides no routing information for an agent choosing among many sibling tools.

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