get_attribute_info

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states 'Get metadata' without describing what metadata is returned, whether the operation is read-only, what happens if the attribute does not exist, or what the response structure looks like. This is a minimal description with significant behavioral gaps.

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 compact and front-loaded with the core purpose. The Args block is a clean, minimal list with no redundant prose. Every line is necessary, and there is no filler.

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, an agent needs more context to invoke this correctly: what 'metadata' includes, the expected return shape, and whether the node path refers to a SOP node, OBJ node, or something else. The description provides only parameter labels and default class options, leaving key operational details undocumented.

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 lists all three parameters and adds the allowed values for attrib_class ('point', 'prim', 'vertex', or 'detail'), which the schema does not provide as an enum. However, node_path and attrib_name explanations merely repeat the schema titles and provide no additional semantics such as path format or naming rules.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'Get metadata for a geometry attribute.' This clearly states the tool's function and differentiates it from tools that retrieve geometry itself (get_points, get_prims, get_geometry_info). However, 'metadata' is somewhat vague and no distinction is made from get_attrib_stats or get_attrib_values, so it does not fully stand apart from all siblings.

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?

No when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is given. There are no explicit alternatives or conditions for choosing this tool over get_attrib_stats, get_attrib_values, or get_prim_intrinsics. The usage context is only implied by the tool's name and one-line purpose.

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