catmull_rom

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the core behavior (evaluates a spline at parameter values) but omits return format, behavior at segment boundaries, minimum point count implications, or how alpha affects results. The schema covers alpha semantics, so a 3 is appropriate.

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?

A single tight sentence with the key verb and resource front-loaded. No filler, no redundancy.

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?

Adequate for a pure math evaluation function with a fully-described schema, but missing return-shape context (no output schema exists) and any indication of how alpha interacts with the result. The description is minimal but not wrong.

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 schema already documents alpha, points, and t_values with meaningful detail (alpha's three modes, min 4 points, t in 0-1). The description adds no parameter detail beyond the schema, so baseline 3 is correct.

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?

States a specific verb (evaluate) and resource (Catmull-Rom spline) with the scope (through control points at given parameter values). Clear and unambiguous, though siblings like bezier_curve, spline_interpolate, and interpolate_calc are not referenced to differentiate use cases.

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 when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no mention of alternative spline tools (bezier_curve, spline_interpolate) in the sibling list. An agent has no basis for choosing this over similar interpolation tools.

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