list_faces

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that outputs use mm/degrees/kg and that results carry "verified measurements and error evidence," which is useful but left unexplained — the agent cannot tell what "error evidence" looks like or whether a failed face appears in the list.

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 short sentences with no wasted clauses, but they are fragmentary and the last sentence ("Inspect verified measurements and error evidence") is an imperative-style instruction rather than a specification, leaving the reader without a concrete takeaway. Front-loading the verb is good; the middle sentence about units is oddly placed before any explanation of output.

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?

For a listing tool with no output schema, the description should say what a face record contains and how the component filter scopes the result; neither is present. Annotations cover safety and the units line covers scale, but the return shape and error semantics — the main unknowns — are unaddressed.

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 single optional parameter "component" has 0% schema description coverage and the description never mentions it, so the agent must guess whether it is a name, path, or ID and what omitting it returns (all components?). With low coverage the description was expected to compensate and does not.

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+resource ("List faces") and situates it in the SOLIDWORKS engine, so the agent knows this enumerates face entities rather than bodies or edges. It does not name its closest siblings (list_bodies, list_edges) to sharpen the distinction, but the core purpose is unambiguous.

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 versus list_bodies, list_edges, or check_interference, and no prerequisite or scoping guidance. "Inspect verified measurements and error evidence" hints at a use case but is too vague to route an agent between alternatives.

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