list_params

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: it discloses the return fields (name, value, kind, unit), warns that outline and cutout point lists are not single numbers, and documents an "error" key for unsupported files. It doesn't explicitly declare the operation read-only or describe ordering/limits, but the behavior profile is largely covered.

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 purpose, then a compact Args line and return-value notes; nothing is padded. The embedded Args block is slightly redundant in style but earns its place given zero schema descriptions.

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?

A single-parameter read tool with no output schema is adequately covered: purpose, accepted file types, return fields, edge cases, and error signaling are all present. Only an explicit relationship to edit_params is missing.

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, and it does: script_path is explained as a path to a .py, .scad, or .FCMacro file written by mesh2cad. That adds real meaning beyond the bare string type in 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 ("List") and resource ("editable parameters") and constrains scope to scripts generated by mesh2cad in three named formats. It doesn't explicitly contrast itself with the sibling edit_params, so sibling differentiation is only implied by "editable".

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?

The precondition "written by mesh2cad" and the error behavior for foreign files are stated, which implicitly tells the agent when the tool will fail. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to choose this over edit_params or analyze, and no stated workflow such as "call this before editing".

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