plasticity_inspect_curve_structure

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 genuinely useful semantic context about return values (periodic span counts may include wrapped extension knots, activeSpanCount counts only intervals across the normalized edge, withinSegment=false knots belong to the trimmed carrier). This is valuable but concerns return content rather than new behavioral traits, so a 3 is appropriate.

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 first sentence is a long run-on listing many attributes, which hurts front-loading and scannability. The two follow-up sentences on knot semantics are dense but each earns its place by resolving real ambiguity in the returned fields.

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 read-only inspect tool with no output schema, the description compensates well by explaining the returned structure in detail. However, the two required parameters (especially revision) are left unexplained and there is no usage routing, leaving an agent partially equipped to invoke it correctly.

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% for two required params (ids, revision). The description implies ids reference 'selected current Wire bodies,' partially clarifying ids, but says nothing about the revision parameter, its format, or what revision means for the returned data. With full burden on the description and a complete gap on revision, it falls short.

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+resource (read native B-Rep structure for Wire bodies) and enumerates the exact fields returned — segment type/length, analytic circle data, NURBS degree, control-point count, knot data. The scope is distinguishable from siblings like plasticity_list_curve_control_points or plasticity_evaluate_curve_segments, though it never names an alternative to draw the line explicitly.

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 'selected current Wire bodies' implies a selection prerequisite, but there is no guidance on when to choose this over sibling inspection/evaluation tools, and no when-not or alternative routing. An agent must guess whether this or plasticity_evaluate_curve_segments is the right call.

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