list_faces

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well by disclosing return fields, index invalidation after edits, and detailed selector behavior. It does not explicitly confirm read-only operation or mention performance/rate limits, leaving some gaps.

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 front-loaded with purpose, then moves to usage and selector details. Every sentence is informative and there is no wasted text; the example at the end is particularly helpful.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (selector syntax) and the presence of an output schema, the description covers essential behavior: return fields, index invalidation, and selector usage. Minor gaps like handling of empty results are acceptable given the output schema.

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. It thoroughly documents the complex `selector` parameter with token syntax and examples, but does not explicitly explain the `doc` and `name` parameters, which remain implicitly understood.

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 faces of an object') and details what fields are returned (index, surface type, area, centre, normal/radius/axis). It does not explicitly name a sibling tool for contrast, so it falls short of the highest bar.

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 clearly indicates the primary use case: providing indices needed by run_fem and fillet, and warns that indices change after geometry edits, so re-listing is necessary. However, it does not state when not to use the tool or name alternative tools for face listing.

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