read_collision_polygon

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It indicates a read operation but does not mention the optional node_path behavior (defaults to all), return format, or any side effects. The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond what the name implies.

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 concise sentence with no unnecessary words. It is front-loaded with the core action and resource. However, it omits useful details (like the node_path default), but for a simple tool, this level of brevity is acceptable.

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?

The tool has no output schema and simple parameters, but the description does not explain what the function returns (e.g., coordinate format) or the behavior when node_path is omitted. Given the presence of sibling tools and the absence of annotations, more context is needed for an agent to use it confidently.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides. It implies scene_path is the source and node_path identifies the polygon, but does not elaborate on formats or constraints.

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 uses a specific verb ('Read') and identifies a specific resource ('CollisionPolygon2D points') with a source ('a scene'). It clearly distinguishes from siblings like read_collision_layers (layers vs points) and read_scene (whole scene vs specific polygon points). However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or elaborate on what 'points' entails, which prevents a 5.

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 is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of scenarios, exclusions, or comparison to sibling tools like read_collision_layers or read_scene. The one-line description offers no usage context.

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