plasticity_list_fastener_group_tests

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint/destructiveHint, so the safety profile is covered. Beyond that, the description adds real behavioral context: records are 'immutable' and 'caller-attested', and the registry preserves failure loads, observed modes, and process/geometry/fixture/report evidence, clarifying what the returned data represents.

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, front-loaded with the action and resource, with the scope exclusion in the second sentence. Dense but every clause carries information; no filler.

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 usefully characterizes what the listing contains (failure loads, modes, supporting evidence) and what it is not for. Combined with zero parameters and covered annotations, an agent has enough to call it correctly.

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 (schema properties empty at 100% coverage), so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. Baseline 4 applies; no parameter-level detail is missing or required.

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 a precise resource ('immutable caller-attested physical multi-hole joint test records'), which is distinct from the record_/match_ variants in the sibling set. It does not explicitly name those siblings, but the noun phrase is specific enough to identify the tool.

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 via the resource scope and gives a useful negative boundary ('does not calculate design allowables or certify a part'), but never states when to reach for this tool versus plasticity_match_fastener_group_test or plasticity_record_fastener_group_test. Guidance is inferable rather than explicit.

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