catia_list_edges

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description still adds useful behavioral detail: the result set is the current solid's edges and includes length plus start/middle/end vertex coordinates in millimetres.

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 dense, front-loaded sentence with an em-dash continuation that adds the actionable hook. Every clause earns its place; nothing is padded.

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, the description usefully covers what is returned (edges with length and points in mm) and why. It stops short of mentioning ordering, empty-body behaviour, or response shape details for an edge list, which is a minor gap.

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?

There is a single parameter (body_name) with 100% schema description coverage, including its default (active body). The description adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 (List) and resource (edges of a body's current solid), plus the exact payload returned (length and start/middle/end points in mm). It is clearly distinguishable from the sibling catia_list_faces.

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?

Explicitly tells the agent what to do with the result: pick an edge's middle point to feed catia_fillet / catia_chamfer edge_points. This is concrete downstream usage guidance, though it never states when NOT to use it or compares against alternative inspection tools.

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