plasticity_list_step_imports

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

Annotations already establish the read-only, non-destructive, local-only safety profile, and the description adds genuinely new behavioral context: records are historical provenance tied to the document/revision at import time, and their body/mesh IDs are NOT current references. That stale-ID warning is exactly the kind of trait annotations cannot convey.

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?

Three compact sentences, front-loaded with the resource definition before the caveat and the paging hint. Every sentence carries information, though the parenthetical format list could be trimmed if the sibling tools already cover the type distinctions.

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 schema descriptions, the description does the heavy lifting on record meaning but omits return shape (does the response include a total count? what fields per record?) and does not resolve the overlap with the sibling list/get import tools. Adequate but with clear gaps for an agent trying to call it correctly the first time.

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 both limit and offset are undocumented in the schema. The description says to use offset/limit for paging, which conveys their purpose, but adds nothing about defaults (20/0), the 100 maximum, or whether limit=0 means 'all' — so the compensation is only partial.

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 well-defined resource (persistent CAD reference import provenance records), with useful enumeration of the source formats (STEP, Parasolid, 3MF). However, it does not differentiate itself from sibling tools like plasticity_list_cad_reference_imports or plasticity_get_step_import, so an agent cannot tell from the text alone why the STEP-specific list exists alongside the general one.

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 only usage instruction is 'Use offset/limit to page results,' which is operational rather than selective. There is no statement of when to prefer this over plasticity_list_cad_reference_imports, plasticity_get_step_import, or the various import_* tools, leaving the agent to infer routing from the name alone.

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