mesh_getPoints

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

With no annotations provided, the description must convey behavioral traits. It only states 'Get' which implies read-only, but it does not disclose return format, behavior on empty layers, potential performance costs, or whether layerId must reference an existing layer. This is a minimal disclosure for a read operation.

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 a single sentence, front-loaded with the core action and resource. There is no redundancy or filler, making it appropriately concise for a simple getter tool.

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?

For a tool with one parameter, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is minimally adequate: it states what it does and the resource type. However, it lacks return format details (e.g., coordinates or points as objects) and does not address edge cases, leaving some gaps 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?

The schema description covers 100% of the single parameter (layerId: 'The numeric ID of the vector layer'). The description adds nothing beyond the schema, merely reiterating 'in a vector layer', so it neither compensates nor detracts. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 action ('Get') and the specific resource ('all mesh points (vertices) in a vector layer'), which is distinct from the sibling tool mesh_getShapes. It uses a specific verb and resource combination that leaves no ambiguity.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like mesh_getShapes or other mesh-related tools. It does not mention any prerequisites, exclusions, or alternative tools, leaving the agent without context for selection.

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