plasticity_find_edges

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that it reads the 'current' revision's B-Rep edges, which is mild added context, but says nothing about result limits, pagination, tolerance behavior, or what a match returns.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence that names the verb, the resource, and the filter dimensions with no filler or repetition.

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 tool with a large nested query schema at 0% description coverage, one sentence is thin: tolerances, the boolean line/circle flags, and the required revision parameter are unexplained. Because no output schema exists, the description should also hint at what matches look like, which it does not.

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% and the query object is deeply nested, so the description carries the burden of explaining the filter fields. It enumerates the semantic criteria (body, curve type, direction, exact length, center, bounds, adjacent faces), which maps to bodyIds, curveTypes, direction, lengthMm, center, boundsMm, and adjacentFaceIds, adding real meaning over bare property names. It still omits tolerance semantics, the line/circle booleans, and the required revision string.

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?

Specific verb ('Find') plus a well-defined resource ('current B-Rep edges') and an enumeration of the semantic search dimensions (body, curve type, direction, length, center, bounds, adjacent faces). This lets an agent understand the operation without opening the schema. It does not, however, distinguish itself from close siblings like plasticity_select_edges, plasticity_extract_edges, or plasticity_find_faces.

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 word 'Find' and 'semantically' imply a search-style lookup, but the description never states when to use this tool versus plasticity_select_edges, plasticity_extract_edges, or plasticity_find_faces. No prerequisites, revision requirements, or exclusions are given.

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