get_attrib_values

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and largely succeeds: it discloses the flat-array element-major layout of float3 data, the has_more/start pagination protocol, and the default page size of 200. It does not cover error behavior or performance characteristics, but the mutation/safety profile gap is moot for a read tool and the pagination contract is unusually well documented.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action, followed by sibling routing, the data-layout caveat, and a compact args list. Every sentence adds distinct information with no repetition of the schema.

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?

There is no output schema and no annotations, so the description has to explain the return shape itself; it does so via the flat-array and element-major notes plus the pagination contract. The remaining gap is the absence of any error or edge-case behavior, which is minor for a read-only getter.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate and it does: all five parameters are documented with meaning ('First element index to return', 'Max elements per page'), and the attrib_class enum values (point/prim/vertex/detail) are supplied here but absent from the schema. It leaves out finer details such as the value ordering for tuple types beyond the element-major note.

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 (read) and resource (attribute values) plus the return shape (flat array with pagination). It also distinguishes itself from the sibling sample_geometry, so an agent can route between them without opening either schema.

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?

Explicit routing guidance: use sample_geometry for spot-checking a few values, use get_attrib_values for a specific slice of one attribute. That is a clear when-to-use/when-to-prefer-an-alternative statement.

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