plasticity_list_curve_vertices

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/non-destructive/closed-world, so safety is covered. The description adds value beyond them by noting the returned IDs are revision-bound, which warns the agent that IDs go stale when the model changes, and by enumerating the returned per-vertex fields.

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 sentences, no filler. The return-content enumeration comes first and the intended use case second, so the agent gets the essentials immediately.

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 carries the burden of describing returns, and it does enumerate body, position, endpoint flag, and adjacent segment entity IDs. Scope issues (whole model vs. selection-scoped, ordering, large-model behavior) are unaddressed, keeping this just below full marks.

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 is no parameter semantics to document; baseline for a no-arg tool is 4. Nothing in the description contradicts or muddies 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 and resource (list every exact native Wire vertex) plus the fields returned, which implicitly separates it from control-point and endpoint listing siblings. It does not name an alternative tool, but the qualifier 'exact native Wire vertex' vs. e.g. control points is a real distinction an agent can act on.

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?

Gives a concrete downstream workflow: use the returned bodyId/vertexId pairs to select profile corners for curve filleting. That tells the agent when this tool belongs in a sequence, though it names no exclusions or alternate list tools for other vertex-like queries.

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