get_edge_list

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, yet it discloses almost nothing beyond the name. It doesn't explain what 'simplified' means, whether the ids are stable or session-scoped, or the shape of the returned data, which matters for a query tool in a CAD topology family.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler or redundancy. It is efficient, though so terse that the brevity edges toward under-specification rather than crisp conciseness.

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?

With no annotations, no output schema, and an undocumented parameter, an agent has no information about return format, id semantics, or failure modes. Given the complexity of the surrounding topology/geometry toolset, the definition is too thin to call the tool reliably.

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 0% and there is one required parameter, solid_id, with no type details or accepted identifier format (handle, name, GUID?) anywhere. The description only obliquely implies solid_id refers to a solid, adding essentially no meaning over the raw 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?

States a specific verb ('Return') and resource ('edge ids') scoped to a solid, so an agent can distinguish it from the neighboring get_face_list and get_vertex_list by entity type. The qualifier 'simplified' is unexplained, which slightly muddies the promise, but the core purpose is unambiguous.

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 on when to prefer this over get_topology, get_face_list, or get_vertex_list, and no prerequisites (e.g., the solid must exist or be loaded). The agent must infer usage purely from the tool name and the sibling names.

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