spline_get_points

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

Annotations already establish readOnlyHint and non-destructive behavior. The description adds the 'all knot points' scope and the set_points pairing, but it does not disclose the return shape or coordinate-space behavior, and there is no output schema to fill that gap.

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, giving the purpose first and the pairing second. The bilingual repetition is intentional and does not add unnecessary noise.

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 one optional parameter and full schema coverage, the description plus annotations are nearly sufficient. The main missing piece is the exact format or coordinate space of the returned points, especially relevant when passing them to spline_set_points.

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%, and the single optional parameter is already documented in the schema: 'Spline names; omit for the selection.' The description mentions spline/knot indexing but does not add meaningful parameter-level information beyond what the schema already provides.

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: 'Read all knot points of a spline'. It also names the pairing with spline_set_points, which distinguishes this tool from the many poly/object-level read tools in the sibling list.

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 description gives clear intended context: inspect or prepare a curve, paired with spline_set_points. It does not explicitly list when-not-to-use cases or alternative tools, but the intended workflow is evident.

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