sw_list_entities

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

readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false already declare the safety profile, so the description needn't restate that. It adds value by disclosing what the result contains (geometry data plus a pick_point usable by other tools), which is non-obvious and not in the schema. It does not mention default limit behavior, sorting, or truncation, which matter for a listing tool that caps at 60 by default.

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?

One short sentence with no filler, but it is grammatically a fragment missing its subject and verb, and the most important fact (that it lists entities for the currently open document) is left implicit. Brevity here comes at the cost of clarity rather than from efficiency.

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?

For a listing tool with a default limit of 60, an optional document target, and a sort-by-distance option — and with no output schema — the description covers only what kinds of entities exist and that they carry geometry and a pick_point. An agent still cannot tell the default document scope, what happens past the limit, or how 'near' affects ordering.

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 coverage is 50%: doc and near are documented, while kind and limit have enums/constraints but no descriptions. The description uses the word "Faces" and "edges", indirectly glossing the kind enum, but says nothing about doc scope, the near sorting parameter, or the limit cap. Baseline 3 is appropriate given partial schema coverage and no compensating detail.

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 names the resource (faces, edges) with enumeration examples and hints at the returned content (geometry, pick_point), but uses no verb — it reads as a noun-phrase caption, not a statement that this lists entities in a document. It is distinguishable from sw_list_bodies and sw_list_features by the face/edge focus, though only weakly.

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?

"for other tools" implies a downstream-use scenario (get a pick_point to feed another call), which is a real usage hint. But there is no explicit when-to-use vs. alternatives, no mention of sw_list_bodies/sw_list_features, and no guidance on when to choose faces vs. edges vs. all.

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