openvsp.query

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

With no annotations, the description carries the disclosure burden; it explicitly declares read-only behavior, pagination, and a model-dependent default caveat. It does not discuss errors or rate limits, but those are secondary for a read-only query and the output schema covers return shape.

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?

Three short sentences front-load the main purpose and then add safety/pagination/context notes. There is no filler or repetition of schema 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?

The output schema covers return values, but the description remains thin for a multi-field request: it doesn't specify which kind should accompany other fields, what 'native capabilities' means in practice, or how to choose between query and sibling inspection tools. It is adequate for a simple query but leaves real gaps.

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 must compensate. It adds meaning by mapping the kind values (capabilities, analysis, parameters) to the query categories and by noting pagination, but it doesn't explain fields like geom_id, parm_ids, geometry_file, or timeout_seconds beyond what their names imply.

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 names a specific action (Query) and distinct resources — native capabilities, analysis input types/defaults, and geometry parameters — so an agent knows the tool's scope. It doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like openvsp.inspect, but the substance is unambiguous.

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 read-only marker and the three query categories imply when to use this tool, and the note about analysis defaults depending on the supplied model gives context. However, it never names alternatives or states when not to use it (e.g., vs openvsp.inspect or read_results).

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