plasticity_list_curve_fragments

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

Annotations already establish readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine behavioral context ('revision-bound', created by native intersections), which tells the agent these are derived, history-bound entities rather than arbitrary curves, but it says nothing about pagination, ordering, or what is returned when no intersections exist.

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 sentence, front-loaded with the verb and resource, with the scoping qualifier appended. Nothing is padded or repeated.

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 no-parameter read-only listing, the description covers the essentials, but it leaves open how these fragments differ from trimmed fragments (the sibling tool) and what the output looks like, which matters since no output schema is provided. Adequate but with clear gaps.

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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so there are no parameter semantics to explain; the baseline for a no-parameter tool is 4. The description correctly implies a global listing with no filtering arguments, which matches the empty schema.

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 (List) and resource (curve fragments), plus a scope qualifier: 'exact revision-bound' fragments 'created by native intersections'. This is far more specific than a tautology, though it never contrasts itself with the obvious sibling plasticity_trim_curve_fragments, so an agent must infer the distinction.

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?

There is no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and no alternative is named. The 'native intersections' qualifier hints at the provenance of the fragments but does not tell the agent when this listing is preferable to trim_curve_fragments or list_curve_intersections.

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