getVertexs

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states it 'gets' data (implies read-only), but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like error handling (e.g., invalid IDs), performance (e.g., limits on array size), or output format. The description is minimal and lacks necessary context for safe use.

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, efficient sentence with zero waste. It's front-loaded and appropriately sized for a simple tool, though this conciseness comes at the cost of completeness in other dimensions.

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?

Given no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'Vertexs' are, how they're returned, or any constraints. For a tool with 1 parameter and no structured output documentation, more context is needed to understand its full behavior and use cases.

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%, with the 'ids' parameter documented as 'Vertex identifiers'. The description adds no additional meaning beyond this, as it merely restates 'by IDs'. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate since the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 'Get multiple Vertexs by IDs' clearly states the action (Get) and resource (Vertexs), but it's vague about what 'Vertexs' are in this context (likely 3D mesh vertices). It doesn't distinguish from sibling tools like 'getSelection' or 'listVertexs' which might retrieve vertices differently.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Sibling tools include 'getSelection' (gets selected vertices), 'listVertexs' (likely lists all vertices), and 'getVertexs' (gets specific vertices by ID), but the description provides no comparison or context for choosing between them.

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