get_cop_info

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

With no annotations present, the description bears full responsibility for disclosing side effects and return behavior. It only says 'Get information,' implying a read operation, but doesn't specify what information is returned, whether a missing node raises an error, or any other behaviors.

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 extremely concise, front-loads the purpose, and includes a labeled Args section. No filler or redundant explanations.

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?

For a one-parameter read-only getter with no annotations or output schema, the description barely covers the tool's behavior. It doesn't enumerate what 'information' is returned, so an agent cannot judge if this tool answers a specific query about a COP node.

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 only restates 'Path to the COP node,' adding a bit of context over the schema's generic 'Node Path' title, but provides no format, examples, or details about the expected path.

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 ('Get') and resource ('COP node'), so the core action is clear. However, it does not distinguish itself from sibling COP inspection tools such as get_cop_geometry or get_cop_layer, which also operate on COP nodes.

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?

Offers no guidance on when to prefer this tool over other COP inspection tools or what to do if the node doesn't exist. There is no mention of alternatives, prerequisites, or exclusions.

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