catia_list_faces

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

Annotations declare this as a read-only, non-open-world operation, and the description adds meaningful behavioral detail beyond that: the exact face properties returned, a caveat about the center of gravity of holed faces, and guidance on using inside_point or axis_point. It does not cover error behavior or pagination, but it substantially enriches the read-only picture.

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 dense sentence with semicolons, front-loaded with the core purpose. It is appropriately sized and avoids fluff, though the run-on structure could be harder to scan than a short bulleted list.

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?

Given no output schema, the description carries the burden of explaining return values and does so thoroughly, including how to use specific returned points. It is complete enough for an agent to invoke the tool and interpret its results, with only minor omissions like error handling.

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% and the single parameter (body_name) already has a clear description including the default active body. The tool description does not add parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline of 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?

The description states a specific verb and resource: 'List the faces of a body's current solid'. It then enumerates the face data returned (type, area, COG, plane, inside_point, radius, axis), which makes it easy to distinguish from sibling tools like catia_list_edges or catia_list_bodies.

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?

The description gives usage hints for the returned data ('use it as face_point', 'any point on them works as axis_point'), but it does not say when to call this tool versus alternatives like catia_list_edges or explicitly state prerequisites or exclusions. Usage is implied for downstream modeling operations.

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