List edges

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

readOnlyHint=true already declares the safety profile, so the description's job is to add context — which it partly does by disclosing units (inches) and the deterministic nature of edge ids. It says nothing about scope limits (body visibility, suppressed bodies), pagination, or what happens on a non-part-studio element.

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 scope ('every edge of every solid body') before the payload description. Zero filler.

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 describe returns, and it does — id, owning body, type, plus radius/centre for circular geometry with units. The remaining gap is failure/edge-case behavior (empty body list, wrong element type), which is minor for a simple read.

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% and each of the three identifiers is documented inline with URL-segment mapping, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond what is already there; baseline 3 applies.

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 ('every edge of every solid body') and enumerates the returned fields (deterministic id, owning body, type, radius/centre). The exhaustive-all-edges scope implicitly contrasts with siblings like onshape_find_edges_by_feature and onshape_find_circular_edges, though those siblings are never named.

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?

No explicit when-to-use, prerequisites, or named alternatives. The phrase 'every edge of every solid body' implies a whole-part enumeration use case (e.g., pre-selecting targets for fillet/chamfer) as opposed to the filtered sibling tools, but the agent must infer that routing.

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