plasticity_capabilities

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds genuinely useful behavior beyond that: a 100-item default page size, case-insensitive matching, the returned total/matching counts and nextOffset, and the rationale that pagination exists to avoid flooding MCP context. It stops short of noting rate limits or ordering guarantees.

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 compact sentences that are front-loaded with the purpose before the paging/filter details. Every clause earns its place, though the single second sentence stacks four facts and could be marginally clearer if split.

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?

With no output schema, the description helpfully states the return shape (total and matching counts plus nextOffset). All parameters are optional and the safe-read profile is covered by annotations. A brief note on result ordering or what a binding entry looks like would make it fully self-sufficient.

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 carry the parameter burden. It explains limit (defaults to 100 per page) and query (case-insensitive substring), but offset is only implied through the returned nextOffset rather than being described as an input control, and the 250/200 bounds aren't mentioned. Partial compensation for the coverage 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?

States a specific verb (page through) and resource (native renderer bindings in Plasticity 26.1.3), and the version anchor makes the scope concrete. It clearly distinguishes itself from the CAD-modeling siblings, though it never explicitly names a counterpart. The purpose is only slightly fuzzy because an agent may not know why it would want renderer bindings.

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 explains the mechanics of paging and substring filtering, which implies the usage (browse/discover bindings in a controlled way). It does not state when to reach for this tool versus e.g. plasticity_call or plasticity_status, and no alternative is named. Implied usage only.

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