vw2d_read

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavior about how grouped objects are returned (listed after their group with a 'parent' field) and that bbox clips the read to an area. However it never mentions the 'limit' parameter (default 2000) or what happens when results are truncated, which is the main behavioral risk for a bulk read.

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 purpose line is front-loaded, the scope follows, and the encoding details come last. Despite being dense, every clause (vertex type codes, hole handling, per-shape geometry layouts) conveys information an agent needs to interpret the result, and there is no filler.

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?

With no output schema, the description correctly spends effort describing the shape of returned geometry per object type and the group/parent nesting, which is valuable. But it omits the limit/truncation behavior and the include_geometry toggle, leaving an agent unable to predict result size or the effect of an available parameter.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must carry the load, and it gives meaning to uuids, selection, layer (including the '*' wildcard), class_name, and bbox (ordering [x1, y1, x2, y2]). Two of seven parameters — limit and include_geometry — are left completely unexplained, which is why this is not a 5.

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?

Opens with a specific verb+resource: 'Read 2D objects with their exact geometry and attributes.' The scope sentence makes clear it can be driven by uuids, selection, layer, or class filter, which distinguishes it from a plain finder like vw_find_objects. It never names a sibling explicitly, so a 5 is not warranted.

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?

Lists the four ways to scope a read (uuids / selection=True / layer / class_name) and states the default ('the active layer'), which is real selection guidance. It does not say when to prefer this over vw_get_selection or vw_find_objects, even though selection=True clearly overlaps with them, and there are no explicit exclusions.

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