List geoms

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safe-read profile is fully covered. The description adds the per-entry contents (triangle count, SURF_ID, bounding box), which is useful, but says nothing about ordering, pagination, or how an empty deck behaves. With annotations carrying the safety burden, this is adequate but not rich.

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?

A single tight sentence with the resource front-loaded and the returned fields trailing. No wasted words, no redundancy with the title.

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 must hint at the return shape and it does so concretely (triangle count, SURF_ID, bounding box). For a read-only, parameterless list tool this is nearly complete; only ordering and empty-result behavior are 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 and the baseline for a no-parameter tool applies. The description correctly adds no parameter noise.

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?

Names a specific verb ("List") and resource (&GEOM entries in the deck), and even defines the acronym as triangulated cut-cell geometry, which effectively separates it from list_surfaces, list_obstacles or list_meshes. It stops short of explicitly distinguishing itself from any sibling by name, so it lands just below the top tier.

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?

There is no statement of when to call this rather than get_object_properties or the other list_* tools, and no prerequisites or exclusions. Usage is only implied by the verb "List".

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