get_face_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, and it discloses almost nothing: not whether the solid must pre-exist, whether the ids are stable across edits, what 'simplified' means, or the return shape. Read-only nature is only implied by the verb 'return'.

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 short sentence with the key constraint front-loaded and no wasted words, which is good structure. The terseness tips into under-specification for a tool with no other documentation surface to lean on.

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 output schema, no annotations, and 0% parameter coverage, the description needed to explain the return value (what a face id actually is) and the solid_id format. It delivers only a bare one-line purpose, leaving the agent unable to predict the response.

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%, so the single required solid_id parameter has no documented semantics anywhere. The description only implies it identifies a solid and says nothing about accepted format (handle, GUID, name) or error behavior for invalid ids.

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 (face ids) scoped to a solid, so an agent knows the output is a face identifier list rather than geometry. However, it does not differentiate itself from siblings like get_face_normal, get_topology, or get_edge_list, and the qualifier 'simplified' is left unexplained.

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 exclusions, and no pointer to an alternative such as get_topology or get_vertex_list. The agent must infer that this is the lighter-weight option for face enumeration from context alone.

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