Get Path Items

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds a genuinely useful output-semantics caveat (fill/stroke exclude per-attribute opacity; use item-level opacity instead), which is value beyond annotations, but it says nothing about the shape of returned data, pagination, or cost.

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 short sentences, purpose front-loaded and the caveat immediately after. No filler, redundancy, or repetition of schema/annotation content.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description should carry more of the return-value burden for a data-extraction tool. The opacity note is a helpful hint but the description does not convey the structure of the returned path/shape data, leaving an agent to infer the response shape.

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%, including a detailed enum explanation for coordinate_system, so the schema carries the parameter burden. The description adds no parameter-level meaning of its own, which matches the baseline 3 when the schema already documents everything.

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 states a clear verb+resource ('Get path and shape data'), which is more specific than a bare restatement of the name. However, it offers no differentiation from siblings like find_objects, get_layers, get_document_structure, or get_groups, so an agent cannot easily tell which extraction tool to pick from purpose alone.

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 no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives. The only guidance is an output caveat about opacity, not a condition for selecting this tool over neighbors like find_objects or get_layers.

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