poly_get_verts

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

Annotations already mark the tool read-only and non-destructive, so the description does not need to cover side effects. It adds useful behavior about pagination and faces filtering, but it does not describe the result shape, coordinate space, or what happens when objects is omitted, which would be more helpful for a tool without an output schema.

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?

Two short sentences per language with the core action front-loaded and the optional filter after it. There is no boilerplate, repetition of annotations, or 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?

For a simple read-only tool with fully documented optional parameters, the description covers the essential behavior: what is returned and how to filter. It lacks details like result ordering or return envelope, but those are not critical for selecting or invoking the tool, especially since no output schema is provided.

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 100%, so the structured field descriptions already document all four parameters (faces, limit, offset, objects). The description's 'pass faces to limit...' restates the faces schema rather than adding new meaning, giving only marginal value beyond the schema.

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 verb ('return'), a specific resource ('vertex indices and positions'), and a pagination modality, clearly separating it from siblings like poly_get_faces, poly_get_edges, and poly_get_stats. The bilingual phrasing leaves no ambiguity about what data is produced.

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?

It gives clear context: use this tool to retrieve vertex data, and optionally pass faces to narrow the result. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion conditions, but the intended usage is evident from the description and the surrounding poly_get_* family.

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