sheet_metal_list_bends

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

With no annotations, the description discloses the key behavioral traits itself: the preview-API dependency, the exact failure signature (FUSION_API_ERROR reason=api_unavailable), and the guarantee that nothing is changed on failure. Missing only whether an active document/design is required; otherwise this is strong for a read tool.

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?

Front-loaded with purpose, then the failure caveat, then the return shape — a sensible ordering with no filler. The return-shape sentence is slightly dense but earns its place because there is no output schema.

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?

Covers the gaps left by the missing output schema by spelling out the return object, and covers the missing annotations by naming the failure mode and its non-destructive nature. Nothing an agent needs to invoke this correctly is absent.

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% — the single 'body' parameter is already documented in the schema. The description restates that it operates on a sheet metal body but adds no format, ID-vs-name, or sourcing guidance beyond the schema, so 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 and resource ('List the bends of a sheet metal body') and immediately enumerates what is returned (inner/outer bend face refs and radius in mm), which distinguishes it from the sibling unfold/refold tools. An agent can tell what it gets without opening the schema.

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?

Explicitly routes forward: 'use the faces for sheet_metal_unfold' names the downstream sibling and the reason to call this first. Also says to check sheet_metal_capabilities when the preview API is missing. Lacks an explicit 'do not use when...' exclusion, but the context is clear.

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