find_edge

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden; it does disclose that the result is a string edge index and that tolerance defaults to 0.1 mm, which is helpful. It never says what happens if no edge matches (error, None, nearest match) or if multiple edges match within tolerance — the critical failure modes for a finder tool.

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?

Front-loaded with purpose and return value, then the arg breakdown; every line carries real information. The 'Args:' docstring style is slightly verbose but not wasteful.

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 8-parameter geometry-query tool with no annotations and an output schema, so return-value explanation is rightly omitted. Still, the ambiguous cases an agent will hit — no match, multiple matches, unit/instance scoping interactions — are unaddressed, leaving gaps that matter 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 only 13% (just 'instance'), so the description must compensate, and it does: it explains the x/y/z target coordinates, the use_x/use_y/use_z matching toggle semantics ('False = ignored'), and the tolerance unit and default. Only 'instance' is left to the schema, and the schema does document that one.

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 and resource ('Find an edge by its midpoint coordinates') and discloses the return type (edge index string). The added note about flange use implicitly separates it from list_edges, though it never names that sibling 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?

'Useful for flange — locate the edge to bend without printing all edges' gives a concrete use scenario and hints at the list_edges alternative, but there is no explicit when-not-to-use guidance or named alternative tool.

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