plasticity_inspect_fastener_group

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, non-destructive, closed-world), and the description adds meaningful behavior beyond that: the evidence is revision-bound native B-Rep, and coaxial duplicate faces, stale references, and off-normal axes are rejected. That rejection behavior is exactly the kind of input-validation context annotations cannot express.

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 dense sentences, front-loaded with the primary read action and followed by downstream use and rejection rules. No filler, though the second sentence packs several distinct ideas together.

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 inspection tool with no output schema and four required params, the description covers what is read, the downstream consumer, and failure modes. The exact shape of the returned evidence is only loosely described, but the essential calling context is present.

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 burden, and it does reasonably well: it maps to cylindricalFaceIds ('two or more explicitly selected cylindrical faces'), bodyId ('one current Solid'), frame (axes must be normal to it), and revision (revision-bound / stale references rejected). It lacks format details for the frame vectors, keeping it short of 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?

States a specific verb (read) and resource (in-plane centers and diameters from cylindrical faces), plus scope constraints (two or more faces, one current Solid). An agent can distinguish it from siblings like inspect_single_fastener_plate or distribute_fastener_group_load without opening the schema.

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 implies usage by noting the returned evidence 'can be passed into fastener-group load distribution', which routes the agent to the downstream workflow. However, it never names an alternative tool or states explicit when-not-to-use conditions, so the guidance remains implied rather than explicit.

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