plasticity_list_reference_meshes

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds genuinely useful behavioral context beyond that: bounds are derived from tessellated data and are explicitly not native B-Rep dimensional proof, which warns the agent against treating these numbers as authoritative dimensions.

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, zero filler. The returned-field list comes first and the caveat about tessellated bounds follows immediately, so the most important context is front-loaded.

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 compensates by naming the returned fields and flagging the fidelity limitation of the bounds data. A no-parameter read tool is otherwise fully described; only ordering/pagination behavior is left unstated.

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 nothing for the description to disambiguate; the baseline for a no-param tool is 4.

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?

Specific verb (List) plus a precise resource (imported STL/OBJ reference meshes) and an enumeration of the exact fields returned (stable IDs, source paths, world-space bounds, buffer counts, transforms). This clearly separates it from siblings such as list_cad_reference_imports, list_step_imports, list_reference_assets, and select_reference_meshes.

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 the usage context (inspecting imported tessellated reference meshes) but never states when to choose this over select_reference_meshes, list_reference_assets, or list_cad_reference_imports. No explicit when/when-not guidance is given.

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