list_edges

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry behavioral disclosure. It discloses the output line format and the min_length filter, but it omits important behavior such as the max_count truncation limit (60) and whether this requires an active document or specific instance context.

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 tight sentences that front-load the output format and then give the use case. There is little wasted text, though the opening 'body 1' phrasing could be clearer.

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 fully explained, and the tool is implicitly read-only. Still, the description leaves gaps around max_count behavior and the meaning of 'body 1', which matter for correct invocation in a CAD context.

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 33%, with only the instance parameter documented in the schema. The description compensates for min_length by explaining it filters small edges in millimeters, but it provides no semantics for max_count, leaving one of three parameters 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?

States a specific verb and resource (list edges) and even shows the expected per-line output format, which is useful context. However, it does not differentiate itself from sibling tools like find_edge, list_component_edges, or list_faces, and the phrase 'body 1' is unexplained.

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 a clear use case: locating edges for flange/fillet/chamfer operations. It also explains that min_length filters small edges. It does not mention when to prefer find_edge or other edge-listing siblings, but the intended context is clear.

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