list_face_roles

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden, and it does well: it discloses that each tag is re-resolved against CURRENT geometry and that drifted/deleted faces are reported rather than silently mis-resolving. It also fully documents the return structure. It does not discuss ordering stability beyond 'sorted by name' or any auth/handle requirements.

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-loads the core purpose in one sentence, then a second sentence for the important drift-detection behavior, then a clean field-by-field return list. No filler; every line earns its place.

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?

With no output schema and no annotations, the description steps up by enumerating the returned dict fields and their types, which is the key missing piece. The only gap is the undocumented handle parameter, which would otherwise have been trivial to add.

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 for the single 'handle' parameter, but it never mentions it. The only argument is left entirely undefined, leaving the agent to infer it refers to the part handle referenced by annotate_face.

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+resource (read back semantic face roles on a part) and immediately anchors it to its counterpart annotate_face. An agent can distinguish it from list_faces/query_faces because the resource is 'roles', not raw faces.

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 'see annotate_face' cross-reference routes the agent to the paired write tool and implies this is its read counterpart. However, it never explicitly says when to prefer this over siblings like list_faces or query_faces, and gives no prerequisites or exclusions.

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