get_coordinate_system

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose substantive semantics: 50 editor units = 1 meter, origin top-left, X rightward, Y downward, clockwise rotation. It does not state that the call is a static, side-effect-free lookup or describe the response structure beyond the parenthetical, leaving some behavioral context implied by the word "Get".

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?

One short sentence plus a compact note, with the purpose front-loaded and the unit/axis conventions packed into a single dense clause. No boilerplate, no repetition of the title, nothing that could be cut.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description must stand in for return values, and it partially does by naming units, axes, and scale factor plus the concrete convention values. It still does not say what form the documentation comes back in (structured fields vs. prose), which is a meaningful gap for a discovery tool with no schema or annotations to fall back on.

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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing parameter-wise for the description to explain; baseline 4 applies. The description uses its space for coordinate conventions rather than redundant argument prose, which is appropriate.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ("Get the coordinate system documentation") and enumerates what the documentation covers (units, axes, scale factor), so an agent knows exactly what it retrieves. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from the adjacent get_design_guide or set_units siblings, which keeps it short of 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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no stated preconditions, and no mention of alternatives such as get_design_guide or set_units. The agent must infer that this is a reference lookup to call before interpreting or placing objects in the editor coordinate space.

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