Retrieve every edge of a shaped object with stable tags and descriptors, returning length, centroid, axis, and radius data for geometry inspection.
List all edges of a shaped object with stable tags + descriptors.
Returns [{tag, index, kind, length, centroid, axis?, radius?}, ...]. Same stability story as list_faces.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| handle | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the return format (array of objects with tag, index, kind, length, centroid, axis?, radius?) and a 'stable tags' behavioral trait, but does not state that the operation is read-only, nor does it mention permissions or side effects.
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?
Two sentences plus a compact return-structure line. Purpose is front-loaded, and every element earns its place by adding value (return fields, stability reference).
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?
For a simple list tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers purpose and return shape, but the lack of any explanation of the required 'handle' parameter leaves a significant gap for an agent trying to invoke it correctly.
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% for the sole required parameter 'handle'. The description only indirectly implies the handle refers to a shaped object, but does not explain what a handle is, its format, or how to obtain one. This is insufficient compensation for the missing schema documentation.
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?
Specific verb 'List' plus resource 'edges of a shaped object', with scope 'all' and output descriptors. It distinguishes itself from sibling list_faces by referencing 'same stability story as list_faces', making the edge-vs-face distinction explicit.
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 description implies the tool is used when enumerating edges of a shaped object, but offers no explicit when-to-use guidance or alternatives (e.g., resolve_edge for a single edge). The reference to list_faces is about stability, not usage.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.