get_points

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose useful behavior: the default page size (200), the approximate payload size (~14 KB), and the has_more pagination flag. It stops short of stating permissions/read-only guarantees or what the returned structure looks like, which matters when nothing else documents it.

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 purpose sentence followed by a tight, terse args list; no filler. The per-arg lines are minimal but complete, and the pagination note is attached to the relevant parameter rather than repeated elsewhere.

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 5-param read tool with no output schema and no annotations, it covers parameters and pagination well but leaves gaps an agent may need: the format/expectations for node_path, how attribute filtering interacts with returned positions, and what 'group' filters on. Adequate but not fully self-contained.

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 document all five params and it does: node_path, attributes, start, count (with default and size rationale), and group. The count entry adds real meaning beyond the bare schema default by explaining the paging workflow.

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 opening sentence gives a specific verb+resource ('Read point positions and attributes') plus a behavioral trait ('with pagination'). It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like get_prims or get_attrib_values, though it never names those alternatives to sharpen the boundary.

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 one buried usage cue — 'page on with start while has_more is true' tells the agent how to iterate — but no explicit when-to-use-this-instead-of-sibling guidance or preconditions. A reader must infer that this is the tool for point-level data versus prim or attribute-value tools.

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