mod_get_gizmo_info

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description is consistent with them. It adds value by disclosing a specific behavioral edge case — modifiers without a Gizmo return hasGizmo=false — which prevents the agent from assuming every modifier exposes a Gizmo.

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 compact and front-loaded, leading with the core operation and adding the edge case second. The only minor inefficiency is bilingual duplication of the same content in Chinese and English, which still keeps the overall length very short.

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 simple read-only query with annotations covering safety and a 100%-covered schema, the description is largely complete: it states the returned data (position/rotation/scale) and the no-gizmo case. It does not specify the transform's coordinate space (world vs local) or behavior when the modifier is missing, but these are minor gaps at this complexity level.

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%, and the schema already defines both parameters (objects = optional selection override; modifier = name/class/index). The description adds no parameter-level semantics beyond the schema, so the high-coverage baseline of 3 applies.

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 states a specific verb and resource: it returns a modifier's Gizmo position/rotation/scale, and clarifies the domain term ('transform gizmo'). It also discloses the hasGizmo=false edge case. Among the large mod_* sibling family, no other tool covers Gizmo transforms, so an agent can distinguish it without opening the schema.

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 return-value statement implies when to call it (whenever Gizmo transform data is needed), but the description gives no explicit when-to-use guidance, exclusions, or pointers to alternatives such as mod_get_params for modifier parameters. An agent must infer usage from purpose alone.

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