plasticity_list_curve_intersections

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

Annotations already state readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds useful scope ('revision-bound', 'native', 'between Wire bodies') but does not cover return format, pagination, or error behavior.

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?

One front-loaded sentence with no filler; every phrase qualifies the resource. It is appropriately sized for a simple list operation.

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 list tool the description covers what is being listed and the body scope. However, with no output schema it could say more about the returned intersection records or how to use them, and it lacks routing guidance.

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?

Zero parameters, schema coverage is 100% by definition, and the description correctly does not invent parameter details. Baseline for a no-parameter tool is 4.

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?

Starts with a specific verb ('List') and names the resource ('curve intersections') plus qualifiers (exact, revision-bound, native, between Wire bodies). It does not explicitly differentiate from sibling intersection or curve-listing tools, but the scope is clear.

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?

No when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is given, and no named alternatives are offered. The agent can infer it is a read-only listing operation, but nothing routes it away from siblings like plasticity_create_body_intersection_curves or plasticity_list_curve_fragments.

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