plasticity_inspect_curve_planarity

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds some value by noting the query goes to the 'native B-Rep kernel' and that the plane result is returned only 'when available,' hinting at a conditional/failure case. It stops short of describing error behavior for non-planar wires.

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, well-formed sentence that front-loads the operation and its outcome with no wasted words. Nothing is repeated from annotations or schema, and the result expectation is embedded efficiently.

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 does carry the burden of explaining the return value (plane origin and normal), which it handles. But with 0% parameter coverage and no annotation gaps to lean on for inputs, the definition leaves an agent unable to construct a correct 'revision' argument.

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 neither 'ids' nor 'revision' is explained anywhere in the description or schema. The mention of 'selected current Wire' subtly hints that ids are wire identifiers, but the meaning of 'revision' and the wire-selection format are left entirely undocumented.

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 names a specific verb (inspect/ask the kernel) and resource (each selected current Wire's planarity), plus the returned data (native plane origin and normal). It is clearly distinguishable from mutating siblings like plasticity_planarize_curves, though it does not explicitly call out which sibling it replaces.

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 phrase 'each selected current Wire' implies the tool operates on the current selection, giving implicit usage context. However, there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or named alternative guidance, so an agent must infer the trigger conditions.

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