visualize_points

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

Annotations provide no hints (readOnly=false, openWorld=false, destructive=false), so the description must carry the burden. It discloses that coordinates are not normalized and that data beyond 20,000 points should use files, implying the tool cannot handle larger data. However, it does not explain side effects like opening a browser (though open_browser param exists) or exact behavior on exceeding limits. The normalization caveat adds useful context, but behavior transparency is only partial.

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?

Two concise sentences with no fluff. The main functionality is front-loaded, and the guidance about larger data and normalization is provided clearly. Every sentence contributes useful information.

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?

Given 6 parameters and only 1 required, the description covers the core parameters (points, colors, target, vectors) but omits open_browser and vector_scale. It also does not explain the output or potential viewer interactions. While an output schema exists, it does not cover behavioral outcomes. The description is adequate for basic use but incomplete for advanced use, falling short of full guidance.

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 should compensate. It clarifies that 'RGB' values are integers 0..255, which adds semantics beyond the plain number type. It also interprets 'target' and 'vectors' as overlay and anchored vector arrows. However, it does not explain 'open_browser' or 'vector_scale', and does not explicitly map all parameters to their roles. The description adds some value but leaves gaps.

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 the tool's purpose: visualize up to 20,000 XYZ points with optional RGB colors, target overlay, or vector arrows. This is specific and distinct from siblings like open_3d_files or set_3d_object, which serve different functions. The mention of specific visualization options (target overlay, anchored vectors) further differentiates it.

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 NOT to use it: 'Use files for larger data' indicates a limit and alternative for larger datasets. It also warns that coordinates are not automatically normalized, which is a caution for usage. However, it does not name specific alternative tools or explicitly state when to use this over other visualization tools, though the limit guidance implies that.

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