sample_geometry

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It simply states the action without any detail on side effects, prerequisites (e.g., node existence or cooking behavior), or read-only guarantees. The description adds minimal insight beyond the name.

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 well-structured: a one-sentence purpose followed by a clean Args list. There is no redundant prose, and the essential information is front-loaded. It could benefit from a slightly more formal formatting, but it is concise and easy to parse.

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 simple sampling tool with only three parameters, the description covers the basics. However, it omits any mention of return value/format (no output schema exists) and does not clarify edge cases (e.g., behavior when node_path is invalid or sample_count exceeds geometry size). This is adequate but not thorough.

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 Args section gives one-line meanings for each parameter, which adds some value over the schema (which has zero descriptions). However, the explanations are terse—'Node path' and 'Number of points'—leaving questions about format, units, or constraints unanswered.

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 clearly states an action ('Sample evenly distributed points') on a specific resource ('a SOP node's geometry'). It is distinguishable from sibling tools like get_points or get_geometry_info by its emphasis on even distribution, though it does not explicitly name alternatives.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of preferred contexts, limitations, or exclusions. An agent would have to infer when sampling is appropriate without help from the description.

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