nx_list_edges

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the safety burden and explicitly states 'Read-only' and 'Inspect every edge', making it clear this is non-mutating and comprehensive. It does not discuss errors or edge cases, but for a read-only inspection tool the disclosure is strong.

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 sentence front-loads the action and resource, then efficiently lists the returned fields. Every word earns its place and there is no 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?

Given the simple one-parameter input and existing output schema, the description covers purpose, scope, and safety sufficiently. It is only missing explicit guidance about sibling tools, but that deficit is already accounted for in the usage-guidelines dimension.

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?

The only parameter, body_id, is largely self-explanatory, and the description reinforces that it refers to the body being inspected. With 0% schema description coverage, however, the description does not add details about the expected ID format or how to obtain it.

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 states a specific verb ('Inspect every edge') and a clear resource ('a body'), and enumerates the exact data returned. It naturally differentiates from siblings like nx_list_faces and nx_list_bodies by focusing specifically on edges.

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 intended use is implied: call this when you need detailed edge geometry and topology of a body. However, it does not explicitly say when to prefer this over nx_list_faces or nx_list_bodies, nor does it mention prerequisites such as the body already being loaded.

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