List edges

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, covering the safety profile. The description adds that edges come with a deterministic id, owning body, type, and radius in inches, which is useful context beyond the annotation. However, it doesn't mention any edge cases (e.g., only solid bodies, not surfaces) or whether the result set is large, so it adds moderate behavioral detail without going deep.

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, well-structured sentence that front-loads the core purpose and lists the returned attributes. No fluff, no redundancy, and every word earns its place.

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 list operation, the description covers what it returns and the scope (all solid bodies). It doesn't specify the output format or pagination, but since there is no output schema, the description partially compensates by naming the fields. It could mention that edges are from solid bodies only, which it does, and that radius applies only to circular edges, but that is a minor gap.

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%, with all three parameters (doc, ws, elem) described in the schema itself. The description adds no additional parameter semantics, so the baseline score of 3 applies because the schema carries the full burden.

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 clearly states the tool lists every edge of every solid body, with specific attributes (id, body, type, radius). It is distinct from sibling tools like find_circular_edges or find_edges_by_feature, but it doesn't explicitly name those alternatives, so the differentiation is implicit 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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as onshape_find_circular_edges or onshape_find_edges_by_feature. The description implies it returns all edges, but it doesn't state when a more targeted edge query would be appropriate, nor does it mention any prerequisites or context for use.

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