Find circular edges

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the radius-filtering behavior and a typical use case, but does not disclose the return format or any limitations. For a read-only tool, this is adequate but not rich.

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 concise sentence (fragment) that front-loads the core purpose and then adds optional filtering and a use case. It is efficient, though it could be more structured as a full sentence.

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 read-only tool with 5 parameters and no output schema, the description explains purpose and typical use but does not mention what the tool returns (e.g., a list of edge IDs). Since there is no output schema, this is a notable gap, but the tool's simplicity and common patterns may mitigate it.

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 100%, so all parameters are documented. The description's mention of 'matching a radius' adds minimal context to the radius parameter, but does not go beyond what the schema already states. Baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 the tool returns circular edges, optionally filtered by radius, and gives a typical use case (picking hole rims to fillet). It distinguishes from generic edge tools by focusing on circular edges, but the verb 'find' is implied rather than explicit, and the resource scope (part studio) is not stated.

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 suggests when to use it (for picking hole rims to fillet) but does not explicitly compare to sibling tools like onshape_get_edges or onshape_find_edges_by_feature, nor state when not to use it. The guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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