catia_list_vertices

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds valuable behavioral context: indices change whenever the model changes, centroids do not, and it explains the token format ('vertex@x,y,z'). This goes beyond the annotations and helps the agent understand the stability of returned data.

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 sentences with no wasted words. The core purpose is front-loaded, and the second sentence provides important stability guidance about indices vs centroids. Every sentence earns its place.

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 read-only list tool with two well-documented parameters and no output schema, the description covers the essential context: what is listed, the token format, and the stability caveat. It doesn't describe the exact return structure, but with no output schema and a simple list operation, the description is sufficiently complete for an agent to call it correctly.

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%, so the schema already documents both parameters (limit and include_metrics) with descriptions. The tool description doesn't add parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema provides, but it does mention 'centre of gravity' and 'exact position' which relate to the include_metrics output. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema carries the parameter documentation burden.

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 lists vertices of visible solid geometry in the active document, with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like catia_list_faces and catia_list_edges by focusing on vertices, though it doesn't explicitly name those siblings.

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 clear context: it operates on visible solid geometry in the active document. It also gives practical guidance on when to use index tokens vs centroid tokens, implying when this tool is useful for referencing geometry. It doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives, but the guidance is actionable.

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