get_coordinates

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It clearly states 'pure read, nothing is modified', discloses that nodes without stored coordinates are returned in missingIds and 'never invented', and explains the coordinate mapping semantics (WGS84 vs UTM). This is comprehensive behavioral transparency for a read operation.

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 dense but front-loaded with the core purpose, then expands to cover return behavior, pagination, and workflow context. Every sentence adds value—there is no filler or redundant restatement. The structure flows logically from what to expectations and use cases.

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 tool with 4 parameters (1 required) and no output schema, the description covers all essential context: it specifies the read-only nature, explains the meaning of the coordinates parameter, describes the missingIds behavior, and gives pagination strategy. It also situates the tool within the broader GIS workflow with sample_elevations. An agent has everything needed to call it correctly and interpret results.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds marginal value beyond the schema: it reiterates the coordinate mapping for 'wgs84' and UTM zones, and offers usage tips like passing specific node ids to keep the response small. However, these are more usage guidelines than new parameter semantics; the schema already documents each parameter's purpose and constraints.

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 begins with a clear verb and resource: 'Read the model's node coordinates (the [COORDINATES] section) without saving a file'. It explicitly states the tool is read-only and differentiates it from the sibling tool sample_elevations by positioning it as the 'geometry half' of the GIS workflow. This leaves no ambiguity about what the tool does or how it differs from related tools.

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?

The description provides explicit guidance on when to use the tool: it explains how to narrow results by passing specific node ids, how to page with offset and the 250-item cap, and it directly names the alternative (sample_elevations) and when to use that instead. This gives an agent clear decision criteria without needing to infer.

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