list_faces

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

No annotations, so the description must carry the full burden. It gives the return array shape and stable-tag semantics under geometry edits, plus guidance to use tags instead of FaceN. Missing an explicit read-only/side-effect statement, but 'list' and the stability detail provide substantial behavioral 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?

Front-loaded purpose, then return shape, stability rule, and tag usage; every sentence contributes. No redundant or filler text.

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?

No output schema or annotations, but the description supplies the return shape and tag stability, covering the biggest unknowns. It omits handle semantics and when to choose it over query_faces/resolve_face, so it is not fully complete.

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% and there is a single required 'handle' parameter. The description only implies the handle refers to a shaped object; it never specifies handle format, provenance, or expected values. Adds little beyond the bare 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?

Specific verb 'List' and resource 'faces of a shaped object', with stable tags and geometric descriptors. Clear, but does not name or differentiate from face-related siblings like query_faces or resolve_face.

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?

Provides only post-call guidance to use tags instead of the FaceN index. No statement of when to choose this tool over alternatives such as query_faces or resolve_face.

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