fusion_query_entities

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses a meaningful behavioral guarantee: filters are exact and ambiguous results are never silently chosen. It also flags scope requirements. It omits details like return format or pagination, but for a read-style query tool this is still strong transparency.

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?

Two crisp sentences with no filler. The core purpose is front-loaded, followed immediately by the most important scoping and behavioral constraints. Every sentence earns its place.

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?

For a complex EntityQuery schema with no output schema or annotations, the description covers essential scoping and ambiguity behavior. Yet it lacks output format details, pagination semantics, and any relationship to sibling inspection tools, so it is adequate but not fully complete.

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 description must compensate. It adds real meaning by mapping entity kinds to required scopes (faces/edges→body; profiles/points/curves→sketch). However, remaining fields such as name, limit, offset, radius_mm, surface_type, and tolerance_mm are left unexplained.

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 clearly states a specific action and resource: 'Discover geometry and re-usable entity tokens.' It also distinguishes entity categories by scope, but it does not explicitly differentiate this tool from sibling tools like fusion_inspect or fusion_model_overview.

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?

It provides concrete operational guidance: faces/edges require body scope, while profiles/points/curves require sketch scope. However, it never explicitly states when to prefer this tool over alternatives or mentions exclusions, leaving the comparison to siblings implicit.

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