plasticity_list_measurements

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real behavioral detail beyond that: measurements carry stable IDs, track current topology targets, and only report exact values when both targets still resolve, warning the agent that some entries may lack values.

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 front-loaded sentence with no wasted clauses, though it is dense and packs the output contract into one long phrase. Every clause carries information, so length is justified.

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 and no parameters, the description has to sketch the return shape, and it does: IDs, topology targets, and conditional values. It stops short of describing ordering, pagination, or scope (document-wide vs selection), which would matter for a list tool.

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 the schema imposes no semantics to explain and the description adds none. Baseline for a parameterless tool is 4; there is no gap for the description to fill here.

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 native measurements stored in the Plasticity document') and even previews the returned fields (stable measurement IDs, topology targets, values). It does not explicitly name a sibling to contrast with, but no other sibling lists measurements, so the resource alone differentiates it.

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 guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives or when results would be empty. The agent must infer that this is the call to make when it wants to enumerate measurements; nothing in the text routes it there.

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