geometry_get_boundaries

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions the return type (list of boundaries with numbers and areas) and default parameter values, but does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only or non-destructive. Adequate but not fully transparent.

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 concise: two sentences plus succinct parameter descriptions. It is front-loaded with the purpose and uses no wasted words.

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 the tool's simplicity (2 optional params, no nested objects, no output schema), the description covers the functionality, usage context, and parameters adequately. The return format is briefly described, but could be more explicit. Overall, it is complete enough.

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 explains both parameters: geometry_name as 'Geometry sequence name (default: first geometry)' and model_name as 'Model name (default: current model)'. This adds meaning beyond the bare schema, though it doesn't detail allowed values or format.

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 the verb 'Get' and the resource 'boundaries from a geometry', and explains its purpose to identify boundary numbers before setting boundary conditions. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like geometry_add_block or physics_boundary_selection.

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 explicitly says 'Use this to identify which boundary numbers correspond to which faces before setting boundary conditions,' providing clear context for when to use it. It doesn't state when not to use, but the guidance is sufficient.

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