get_topology

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

The description discloses sorting order, pagination with limit/offset, and return structure (total, returned, list with attributes). However, it omits mention of required parameters doc_name and obj_name, and does not specify vertex-specific return fields, leaving gaps in behavioral transparency. Since no annotations are provided, the description carries the full burden but only partially covers it.

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 well-structured with clear sections (purpose, sorting, usage hint, args, returns). Every sentence adds value, no fluff or redundancy. Front-loads the core purpose effectively.

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?

The description covers the main functionality, sorting, and return format, but it omits required parameters and vertex-specific output details. Given the tool's complexity and the presence of an output schema, the description is adequate but not complete, leaving agents to infer missing critical inputs.

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?

The Args section explains element, limit, and offset with acceptable detail (enum values, range, default). However, the required parameters doc_name and obj_name are entirely absent from the description. With 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate, but it fails to document two of the five parameters, leaving a significant gap.

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 tool lists an object's faces, edges, or vertices with semantic info for selection. It uses a specific verb (List) and resource (topology) and provides context for use in follow-up operations like fillet, boolean, or sketching, distinguishing it from general object listing tools.

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 to use the returned index/name in follow-up operations, providing clear usage context. It doesn't name alternatives or exclusions, but the purpose is specific enough to imply when to use this tool over siblings.

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