get_vertices

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, so the read-only nature is already covered. The description adds that results are limited to avoid huge payloads and that filtering by vertex group is possible, but does not detail behavior when the limit is exceeded or whether coordinates are in object or world space.

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 only two sentences (12 words), front-loaded with the main action. Every word adds value, and there is no fluff.

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?

The tool is simple and the output schema likely covers return values. The description covers purpose, filtering, and limiting, but lacks an explicit explanation of the 'object' parameter and coordinate space, leaving some ambiguity for a complete understanding.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate. It explains the group filter and implies the limit, but the required 'object' parameter is not described, leaving a core semantic 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 clearly states 'Get vertex positions' with a specific verb and resource. It is immediately distinct from siblings like set_vertices (a write operation) and get_vertex_groups (which returns group names, not positions).

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 implies usage when vertex positions are needed, and mentions optional filtering by vertex group. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives such as get_mesh_info or how it differs.

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