plasticity_list_section_analyses

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond the annotations: it reads Plasticity shading state, sections are viewport state, and the operation does not modify B-Rep or Undo history. It does not discuss auth, rate limits, or pagination, but those are less central for this read-only listing tool.

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 two sentences, with the purpose and returned fields front-loaded. Every sentence contributes: the first enumerates the return payload and the second clarifies the non-mutating viewport-state nature. No filler or repetition.

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 listing the returned fields (analysis ID, origin, clipped-half-space normal, visibility, viewport count) and explaining the viewport-state semantics. It could be clearer about whether the result is a single active plane or a list of section analyses, and it omits empty-state or error behavior, but it is adequate for a parameterless read-only 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 input schema has zero parameters, so there are no input semantics to document. The baseline for a parameterless tool is 4, and the description appropriately focuses on the returned fields instead.

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 uses the specific verb 'List' and resource 'active native Plasticity viewport section plane' and enumerates the returned fields. However, the tool name is plural ('analyses') while the description describes a singular active section plane, creating minor ambiguity about whether one or many section analyses are listed. It does not explicitly name sibling tools, but the read/list verb distinguishes it from create_section_analysis and delete_section_analysis.

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 states what the tool reads ('the section currently applied by Plasticity shading state') and clarifies that sections are viewport state that does not modify B-Rep or Undo history. This gives clear context for when to use it, but it names no alternative tools (e.g., create_section_analysis or delete_section_analysis) and gives no explicit when-not conditions.

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