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 useful specifics that centres are reported in inches and that the radius filter is optional. It still doesn't say what identifying info accompanies each centre (edge id, radius value) or how the tolerance affects results.

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?

A single dense sentence that front-loads the resource and the radius-filter qualifier, with the use cases trailing as motivation. Efficient, though the stacked parenthetical and em-dash clause makes it slightly harder to scan than a two-clause form would.

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, the description must carry the return shape, and it only partly does: centres in inches, radius filtering. It omits whether radii, edge ids or counts are returned, which an agent needs to chain this into a fillet call.

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 coverage is 100%, so all five parameters, their units and the tolerance default are already documented in the schema. The description only restates the radius filter, adding nothing beyond the schema — baseline 3 is correct here.

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 — find circular edges, full circles and arcs — and the returned content (each edge's centre in inches). It doesn't name sibling tools like onshape_get_edges or onshape_find_edges_by_feature, so the boundary is inferred from the word 'circular' rather than 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?

It hints at the two main use cases (picking hole rims to fillet, checking hole locations), which implies when to reach for it. But it never says when to use onshape_get_edges or onshape_find_edges_by_feature instead, nor any prerequisites for the doc/ws/elem identifiers.

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