List meshes

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

Annotations already establish readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds genuine value beyond that: it discloses the diagnostic self-check for overlap/gaps/non-cubic cells and the coarse/fine ratio, which tells the agent this is a validation-oriented read, not just a dump.

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 substantive sentences, front-loaded with what is listed and followed by the ordering rule; no filler. The bracketed rule-id footer is terse and slightly cryptic, but it functions as a cross-reference to bulc_knowledge_search rather than padding.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description carries the burden of describing return content — and it does so item by item, including the derived diagnostics. Combined with the ordering guidance and annotation-covered safety profile, there is nothing an agent needs to call this correctly that is 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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing to document and the baseline is 4. Schema coverage is 100% and the empty object schema matches the parameterless description.

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 resource (&MESH deck) and enumerates exactly what is returned (XB, IJK, cell size, cell count, coarse/fine ratio, totals, self-check). It also names the sibling tools it precedes (set_meshes, slice_mesh, merge_meshes), so an agent can distinguish it from them without opening schemas.

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?

Explicitly instructs to read this before set_meshes, slice_mesh or merge_meshes, and gives the reason (so index numbers refer to the right mesh). This is a concrete when-to-use rule tied to specific alternatives, not implied guidance.

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