plasticity_list_curve_control_points

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

Annotations already declare the safe read-only profile, so the description earns credit for going beyond them: revision-bound references, positions in millimeters, native local positive-U/negative-U unit slide directions, and a caveat that positions come from Plasticity's native editor representation rather than exact B-Rep. That caveat is genuinely useful behavioral disclosure. It does not discuss error conditions (e.g., stale revision) or result ordering, keeping it short of a 5.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the action and resource, then output detail, then the validation caveat. Dense but no filler; the only mild cost is that the units and direction conventions are packed into a long second sentence.

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 must describe returns, and it does: separate boundary-vertex and interior control-point sets, revision-bound references, millimeter positions, and slide directions. Combined with annotations covering safety, an agent has enough to call and interpret this tool, the only gap being parameter meaning and pagination/limits.

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 parameters, so the description carries the full burden, and it does not clarify what `ids` refer to (bodies? wires? handles?) or what a valid `revision` value is. "Revision-bound references" hints at the revision's role but gives no usable semantics for either parameter.

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 ("List") and resource ("every editable native control handle for selected current Wire bodies"), and it explicitly separates boundary vertices from interior B-Spline control points, which is exactly what distinguishes it from siblings like plasticity_list_curve_vertices. An agent can identify the tool's output domain 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?

It gives one useful piece of usage context — use exact B-Rep measurements to validate resulting curve geometry — and implies that boundary vertices are covered elsewhere. However, it never explicitly names an alternative tool or states a condition like "use this before plasticity_move_curve_control_points" or "use plasticity_list_curve_vertices for boundary-only queries." Usage is implied rather than directed.

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