fusion_list_edges

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds valuable behavioral context by enumerating exactly what the topology snapshot includes: index, curve type, length, points, radius when circular, and adjacent face indices/types, which is beyond what the schema or annotations convey.

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?

The description is concise and front-loaded, leading with the primary action and purpose, then listing the output contents in a compact second sentence. Every part earns its place and no unnecessary fluff is present.

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?

The returned fields are clearly listed, which helps compensate for the lack of an output schema. However, the description does not explain the body parameter's accepted formats, which is a critical gap given the schema provides no parameter descriptions. The tool is otherwise reasonably self-contained for a read-only enumeration.

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%, so the description must compensate, but it does not clarify how the 'body' parameter should be specified—whether integer index, string ID, name, or path. The only hint is the phrase 'one body's edges', which does not explain accepted value formats or how to resolve a body.

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 clearly identifies the verb ('Enumerate') and resource ('one body's edges'), and frames the use case as preparing for selective operations. It is distinct from likely siblings like fusion_list_faces by the resource type, but it does not explicitly name or contrast any sibling tool.

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 phrase 'for selective operations' gives a reasonable hint that this tool should be used when you need to choose edges for a downstream operationcars. However, it does not explicitly explain when not to use it, nor does it recommend alternatives such as fusion_list_faces or fusion_get_body.

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