list_edges

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses the conjunctive selector behavior and describes what fields are returned, but it does not explicitly confirm read-only safety, permissions, invalid-selector behavior, or pagination handling.

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?

The description is two compact sentences, front-loads the tool purpose and returned fields, then gives the selector grammar as a focused token list. There is no redundant or wasted text.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need less explanation, and the description still usefully clarifies output composition and selector semantics. The main gap is that required 'doc' and 'name' parameters are not described, but overall the definition is sufficient for correct invocation.

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 the description must compensate for all parameters. It adds substantial meaning for the selector parameter through token grammar and examples, but the required 'doc' and 'name' parameters remain undocumented.

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 states a specific verb and resource ('List edges') and immediately specifies the returned attributes: index, curve type, length, midpoint, direction or radius. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools such as list_faces, list_objects, and object_history.

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 explains selector filtering semantics ('space separated, all must match') and gives concrete token examples, which is useful invocation guidance. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus list_faces/list_objects or when not to use a selector, so usage remains implied rather than fully guided.

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