cad_find_edges

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions 'Returns deterministic ids' but does not explicitly state read-only behavior, authentication needs, or side effects. Since the name implies read-only, it is adequate but not fully detailed.

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 with the main purpose, but it is a single paragraph without bullet points or clear separation of inputs. Every sentence adds value, but better structure could improve readability.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (10 parameters, 6 kinds, no output schema), the description is remarkably complete, covering each kind's behavior and key parameter usage. It also notes the return type (deterministic ids) and distinguishes from 31 sibling tools.

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?

Despite 0% schema description coverage, the description adds meaning to the 'kind' parameter and explains how other parameters (radius, tolerance, axis, max, coordinate) relate to each kind. For example, 'circular (radius+tol)' and 'extreme... axis=Z max=false'. Some parameters like 'through' are only briefly mentioned.

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 finds edges by geometry and enumerates six specific kinds (circular, concave, convex, linear, extreme, on_plane) with brief explanations, distinguishing it from sibling tools like cad_fillet or cad_chamfer.

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 explicit guidance for each kind (e.g., 'concave is ideal for fillets', 'extreme... to fillet at once'), implying when to use each variant. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or compare it to alternatives among siblings.

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