fusion_list_joints

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the description's contribution is limited to specifying the returned data (name, type, counts). This adds some behavioral context beyond annotations. However, it does not mention potential side effects, error conditions, or scope (e.g., all joints in document).

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 a single, compact sentence that conveys the essential information without any wasted words. It is front-loaded and efficient.

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 has no parameters and no output schema, the description tells the agent what it will receive (joint names, types, and counts). It is adequate for a simple listing tool. However, it could be improved by specifying the scope (e.g., all joints in the current document) and any limitations.

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 tool has zero parameters, and schema coverage is 100% (empty schema). The description accurately reflects that no parameters are needed. Since no parameter documentation is required, a baseline score of 4 is appropriate.

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 it lists joints with their name and type, and also provides counts for as-built-joints and rigid-groups. It identifies the resource (joints) and the specific fields returned. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like fusion_joint (which likely creates/modifies joints) or fusion_rigid_group, though the mention of counts hints at additional context.

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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Given the presence of sibling tools like fusion_joint, fusion_as_built_joint, and fusion_rigid_group, explicit usage context would help the agent decide correctly. The description only states what it does, not when to use it.

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