get_cop_info

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It implies a read-only operation through 'Get', but does not explicitly state safety, permissions, side effects, or return format. This is a minimal disclosure for a read tool with zero annotation coverage.

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 very short and front-loaded, with an explicit Args block. Every word is used, though the extreme brevity contributes to under-specification rather than pure conciseness.

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 what information is returned and how it differs from related COP info tools. It does not, leaving the agent without enough context to invoke it confidently.

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?

The schema has 0% description coverage for node_path. The description adds 'Path to the COP node', which is only a slight expansion of the parameter name and title ('Node Path'). It does not provide format, example, or path syntax details to compensate for the schema gap.

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 verb ('Get') and a resource ('COP node'), but 'information' is vague and does not specify what kind of information (geometry, layer, VDB, parameters, etc.). It also fails to distinguish from close siblings like get_cop_geometry, get_cop_layer, get_cop_vdb, or general get_node_info. An agent can tell it is about COP nodes but not exactly what it returns.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Given many related siblings (get_cop_geometry, get_cop_layer, get_cop_vdb, get_node_info, list_cop_node_types), the absence of routing information leaves the agent to guess.

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