plasticity_list_printed_thread_qualifications

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

Annotations already declare a safe read-only, closed-world operation, so the bar is lower. The description adds genuine context beyond annotations: the records are immutable, local, and exclude inferred or geometry-only results, which tells the agent about data provenance and reliability.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with the primary action and resource, followed by the scoping clarifications. Every clause carries information; nothing is redundant.

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?

No output schema exists, but the description conveys what the list contains (immutable physical thread-fit qualifications) and sketches the filterable axes. For a read-only filtered-list tool with annotation coverage, this is nearly complete, though it omits pagination or ordering behavior.

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?

Schema coverage is 0% and there are 8 parameters, so the description must compensate. It enumerates the filter categories (printer, material, slicer profile, rounded thread dimensions, handedness, fit class) which map cleanly onto the parameters, though it gives no value formats or units beyond what the schema's enums and numeric constraints imply.

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 local physical thread-fit qualifications), with qualifiers that separate it from inferred or geometry-derived variants. It does not explicitly name siblings like plasticity_match_printed_thread_qualification, so differentiation is achieved by scope description rather than routing.

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 notes the registry is 'available without Workbench' and contains 'no inferred or geometry-only passes', which implicitly tells the agent when this source is appropriate. However, it never states when to prefer this tool over alternatives such as match or record qualification tools.

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