query_connections

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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world behavior, so the safety bar is met elsewhere. The description adds real context beyond that: results are paged by component, link ids are stable, coordinates are uncentred integer blocks, and endpoints take the forms {part_id,port} and {part_id,surface_index}. Not quite a 5 because pagination mechanics partially repeat the schema's limit/offset docs.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the returned content, then prerequisites, then endpoint formats and the sibling contrast. No filler, no redundancy, every clause carries information.

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?

An output schema exists, so return shape needn't be restated, and annotations cover the safety profile. What remains – ordering relative to mutating tools, endpoint notation, coordinate convention, paging unit, and the geometry alternative – is all present, leaving nothing an agent needs before calling.

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 100%, including limit, offset and design, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond what the schema already documents (its 'draft' phrasing is implied by the design param).

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 a draft's connection points and links') and enumerates exactly what is returned: node indices, surface indices, wires with stable link ids, draft revision. It explicitly contrasts with query_parts ('lists geometry instead'), so an agent can distinguish it from the sibling without opening schemas.

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?

Gives an explicit ordering rule: call before edit_connections, route_connections or apply_vehicle_assembly. It also names the alternative for geometry data (query_parts), so both the 'when' and the 'instead of' are covered.

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