mdpa_select_nodes

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full behavioral burden. It does disclose read-only intent ('without changing anything'), the tolerance default (1e-9 x bounding-box diagonal), the combined-as-intersection semantics of selectors, and the return shape. But it omits permission requirements, whether the selection persists, and performance characteristics.

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 the core purpose, but the selector enumeration is a dense run-on that packs many concepts into one block. Information density is high and structure is only lightly signaled with parentheticals.

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 an output schema exists (so return values needn't be re-explained), the description still usefully previews the return (count, first 'limit' ids, bounding box). Combined with the selector documentation, it covers what an agent needs to invoke this correctly, though 'path' semantics and persistence of the selection are unaddressed.

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 description coverage is 0% and the selector is an unconstrained object, so the description must do heavy lifting. It documents every selector key (ids, part, box, sphere, plane, expression, tolerance, all), their shapes, intersection semantics, and the expression sign convention – far more than the empty nested schema provides. Only 'path' and 'limit' lack explanation.

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 (find) and resource (nodes) plus the key qualifier 'by geometry without changing anything'. It distinguishes itself from mdpa_get_nodes and mdpa_inspect through the selector-based geometric selection, though it doesn't explicitly name those siblings for contrast.

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 names the follow-up tool (mdpa_create_sub_model_part) for naming the selection, giving a clear workflow context. However it doesn't state when to prefer this over mdpa_get_nodes or mdpa_inspect, and there are no exclusion conditions.

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