parameter_list

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

With no annotations and no output schema, the description carries the full burden and does so well: it discloses unit normalization (lengths in mm, angles in degrees, value omitted for other units), conditional fields (dependents only with include_dependents), and null semantics for created_by. It does not state what happens with no active design or whether the list is ordered/filterable further, but the core behavioral contract is clear.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded in one sentence, followed by the item contract; no filler. The field enumeration is dense and slightly run-on, but since there is no output schema each field 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?

Substitutes effectively for the missing output schema by documenting every returned field, including units and conditional keys, which is what an agent needs to parse results. Minor gaps: no statement on requiring an active design or on result ordering.

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 every parameter already has a description, so baseline is 3. The description adds some real meaning – it clarifies that 'model' parameters are feature-owned (via created_by) and that include_dependents changes the item shape – but it does not expand on component refs or name_contains beyond what the schema says.

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 and resource: 'List parameters of the active design', with the implicit scope that it reads the currently active document. It is clearly distinct from the write-side siblings (parameter_create/update/delete), though it doesn't explicitly position itself against timeline_feature_parameters or design_get_settings, which also expose parameter data.

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 example 'parameter_list(kind="model") -> find `d1` of an extrude to drive it' implies the discovery-then-edit workflow, which is useful. But there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no note that this should precede parameter_update, and no mention of alternatives for inspecting feature-owned parameters.

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