plasticity_analyze_edge_curvature

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

The annotations already declare a safe read-only, non-destructive, closed-world operation, and the description adds substantive behavioral context: it does not use the display mesh, does not claim an exact continuous maximum (it is a sampled approximation), and does not change the document. These are real traits beyond the annotations, though the sampling resolution tradeoff could be elaborated further.

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?

Three tight sentences, front-loaded with the action and scope, then reference sourcing, then returns and limitations. No filler; every clause conveys information an agent needs.

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?

There is no output schema, and the description compensates by enumerating return content (curvature magnitude in 1/mm, finite radii in mm, extrema locations, straight-flag). Only the unexplained revision parameter leaves 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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description carries the burden, and it explains the two branch shapes of the edges parameter (bodyId+edgeId vs bodyId+segmentEntityId) and where to obtain those IDs. The revision parameter is left unexplained, which keeps it from a 5.

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 precise verb+resource+scope: sampling Plasticity's native B-Rep curvature vector at 100 positions along each selected current edge. It clearly distinguishes itself from the numerous curve/edge siblings by naming the exact analysis performed.

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 tells the agent how to source the required references for both cases (Wire segments via plasticity_list_curve_directions, Solid/Sheet edges via state), which is strong usage guidance. It stops short of explicitly naming when to prefer this versus a continuous/exact analysis tool, but the context is clear.

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