catia_list_edges

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

Beyond the readOnly and non-destructive hints, the description discloses that indices are unstable across model changes while centroids remain stable, which is important behavioral context. It also scopes the tool to visible solid geometry, adding specificity. No contradiction with annotations.

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 two concise sentences, with the core purpose stated first and a practical usage tip second. No extraneous words.

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 the output fields (token, centroid, length) and the stability caveat, which is essential for correct use. With no output schema, this provides sufficient context for an agent to understand the return structure. It also implies the scope of visible solid geometry. Minor omission: it doesn't mention pagination or limit behavior, but those are in the schema.

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 schema already fully documents both parameters (limit and include_metrics) with descriptions, so the description adds no additional parameter meaning. It does not mention them at all, so it does not exceed the schema baseline.

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 action (list), the resource (edges of visible solid geometry in active document), and the key output components (index token, centroid, length). This distinguishes it from sibling list tools like list_faces and list_vertices by specifying 'edges' and 'visible solid geometry'.

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 description provides guidance on how to use the returned tokens, advising to prefer centroid-based tokens for repeated references because indices change. However, it does not explicitly contrast this tool with alternatives or state when to use it over list_faces or list_vertices, so usage guidance is only implied.

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