get_control_points

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

The description discloses that it is a read operation returning different control point data per curve type and details parameters. However, it does not mention error conditions (e.g., if the object is not a curve) or performance considerations.

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 very concise with a clear structure: main purpose in the first sentence, then return types, then parameter list. No extraneous 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?

The description covers the tool's purpose, parameters, and return types per curve type. Without an output schema, it provides valuable context. It could be more complete by mentioning that the object must exist and be a curve.

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 fully compensates by explaining each parameter: name as 'Curve object name' and spline_index as 'Which spline within the curve (default 0)', adding meaning beyond the schema.

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 reads control points of curve objects (BEZIER, POLY, NURBS) and specifies the returned data per type, differentiating it from sibling tools like get_vertex_positions or set_control_point.

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 does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. While the purpose is clear, there is no mention of exclusions or contexts where other tools might be more appropriate.

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