list_subshapes

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior. The verb 'List' clearly indicates a read-only, non-destructive operation, but no further context is given about prerequisites, side effects, or ordering. The explicit mention of subshape types adds some detail, but it is basic.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence that is concise and free of waste. Every word contributes to the essential meaning.

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?

Given the tool's 3 parameters, no annotations, and 0% schema description coverage, the description is too sparse. It leaves sorted_centres and return behavior to the output schema. While the output schema may document return values, the overall description does not provide enough context for an agent to use the tool 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?

The schema has 3 parameters with zero descriptions (0% coverage). The description partially compensates by enumerating possible subshape types ('FACE/EDGE/VERTEX/SOLID') which relates to subshape_type, and implicitly covers shape_ref via 'for a GEOM object'. However, sorted_centres is completely unexplained, leaving a third of the parameters without semantic context.

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?

The description states a specific action ('List') and resource ('subshape IDs') with a clear scope ('for a GEOM object'). It differentiates from sibling tools like get_object_info and explode_shape by focusing on enumerating sub-entities rather than retrieving general info or breaking the object.

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 usage when operating on a GEOM object and needing subshape IDs, but provides no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, nor does it name alternatives. The context of operating on geometry objects is clear, but exclusions and alternatives are absent.

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