get_edges

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

The description identifies the tool as read-only ('Read edge data') and mentions the safety cap (max_edges) with default. Without annotations, it adequately discloses the read nature and safety limit, though no further behavioral details are given.

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 extremely concise: one sentence defining purpose, one listing returned data, then a clear parameter list. Every word adds value, and key info is front-loaded.

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 description covers purpose, parameters, and returned data fields. Without an output schema, it could provide more detail on the structure of 'vertex pair' (e.g., indices or coordinates), but it is sufficiently complete for a read operation on edges.

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 description adds extensive meaning to all parameters: name (mesh object), indices (comma-separated, returns all if omitted), max_edges (safety cap, default 5000). This fully compensates for the 0% schema description coverage.

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 states the tool reads edge data from a mesh and lists the specific fields (vertex pair, sharp flag, etc.), distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_faces or get_vertex_positions.

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 tool's purpose is clear, but no explicit guidance on when to use it versus alternatives (e.g., get_mesh_stats) or when not to use it. The description lacks contextual usage cues.

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