list_component_edges

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does reasonably well: it discloses the coordinate frame of the returned data, shows a concrete row format, and explains that circular_only restricts to edges Insert can actually consume. It does not state read-only behavior or what happens when occurrence is invalid, but for a listing operation that is a modest gap.

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 the tool's purpose and a compact example row, then a short args block. Every sentence earns its place; the colon-and-quote opening is slightly awkward 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 output schema exists, so return values needn't be spelled out, yet the description still provides a representative row and its coordinate semantics. The only real omission is guidance on the undocumented 'instance' parameter and any behavior when the occurrence index is out of range.

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 25%, so the description must compensate, and it does for three of four parameters: occurrence is defined as a component index with a pointer to list_occurrences, circular_only is tied to the Insert use case, and max_count is described as a row limit. The 'instance' parameter is left entirely to the schema.

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: the edge table of one placed component, in that component's own part coordinates, with a sample row showing the output shape. The coordinate-frame scoping is genuinely useful and separates it from a generic edge lister, though it never names the sibling list_edges it most closely overlaps with.

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?

'Use to pick edges for constrain_insert' gives a concrete downstream purpose, and 'see list_occurrences' routes the agent to the tool that supplies the occurrence index. No explicit when-not-to-use condition or contrast with list_edges/find_edge is given.

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