find_edges

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

No annotations, so the description carries the full burden. 'Find' implies a read-only query, and the description discloses filtering semantics and what an empty `path` resolves to. It does not disclose truncation behavior when `max_count` (default 40) is hit, what happens with zero matches, or unit conventions beyond 'mm'.

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 leading sentence is front-loaded with the core behavior and the two-mode split, followed by a compact Args block. The Args list partially restates schema titles but earns its place by adding meaning (circle center, 'skip edges shorter than this', 'most results to return').

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 not be described. For a 7-parameter read tool with no annotations, the definition covers mode selection, filters, and downstream consumers well; the remaining gap is silent truncation via the default `max_count` of 40.

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 only 14%, so the description must compensate, and it does: it documents 6 of 7 parameters including a literal example for `at` ({"X": 50, "Z": 1.5}) and a sample `ref` string for the component path. Only `instance` is left to the schema, and `at`'s freeform anyOf object still lacks a full key list.

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 edges') and immediately splits the behavior into two modes keyed on `path`, so the agent understands the two distinct retrieval shapes. It never names `find_faces` or other siblings, so differentiation from the nearest neighbor is only implicit via the word 'edges'.

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?

Gives concrete downstream routing: edges without `path` feed add_flange/fillet/chamfer, circular edges from a component feed constrain(kind="insert"). That is genuine when-to-use guidance, but there are no explicit exclusions (e.g. when to use find_faces or project_edges instead).

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