plasticity_list_reference_assets

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

Beyond the readOnly/openWorld/destructive annotations, the description discloses that it performs exactly one bounded HTTPS GET of the selected page, does not download, import, run scripts, or mutate, pins DNS to public IPv4, enforces domain matching across page host, redirects and asset hosts, and omits query-bearing links to avoid leaking expiring credentials. This is rich, non-redundant behavioral context.

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?

The description is dense but front-loaded with the core action before the security caveats and next-step advice. Every clause adds information, though the security detail makes it longer than strictly necessary for selection.

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 describes the returned data (exact asset URL, format, license, fit) and covers the security and side-effect profile an agent needs. Nothing required to call it safely and correctly appears to be missing.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must carry parameter meaning. It explains allowedDomains semantics ('same explicit allowedDomains used for the selected search') and implies sourcePageUrl through 'explicitly selected ... page', but does not clarify format constraints or the domain-matching rule's effect on the parameters beyond that. Partial but not full compensation.

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?

The description states a precise verb (list) and resource (STEP/Parasolid, mesh, and drawing links on a selected product/CAD source page) and explicitly scopes it as a read of one page. It clearly distinguishes itself from the download/import tools the agent would use afterwards.

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?

It says to read 'one explicitly selected product or CAD source page', to reuse the 'same explicit allowedDomains used for the selected search', and to review results 'before separately choosing a download/import tool', giving clear when-to-use and next-step routing. It does not name exact sibling tools (e.g. plasticity_search_product_references, plasticity_download_and_import_step), so it falls short of the fully explicit alternative-naming bar.

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