plasticity_status

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint/openWorldHint/destructiveHint, so safety is covered. The description adds genuinely useful behavior beyond that: pagination defaults and maximums, and the revision-pinning mechanism that prevents scene edits from mixing pages. It stops short of describing error handling or failure modes, but the added context is substantial.

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 dense sentences with zero filler, and the most important information (what it reads, what the payload contains) is front-loaded before the pagination mechanics and the sibling routing.

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 takes on the burden of describing the return content, which it does (identity, revision, body bounds, topology counts, Undo/Redo state), and it fully explains the paginated body-summary behavior. Nothing an agent needs to invoke it correctly 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?

Schema coverage is 0%, so the description must carry the load, and it does: bodyOffset/bodyLimit defaults (0/50) and maximum (200) are given, and expectedRevision is explained in terms of passing the prior page's revision to avoid mixed pages. All three parameters are meaningfully documented.

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 opens with a specific verb ('Read') and resource ('compact document summary') and enumerates the exact payload: identity, revision, exact body bounds, topology counts, and Undo/Redo state. It is clearly distinguishable from siblings, which it names explicitly.

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?

It states when to reach for alternatives: 'Use plasticity_body_info for exact face/edge/vertex geometry of one body, or plasticity_list_bodies for paginated topology details.' It also describes the correct pagination workflow (follow bodyPagination.nextOffset, pass the prior page's revision as expectedRevision), so an agent knows both when to use it and how.

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