annotation_detect_parts

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the description adds value by explaining clustering, return format (part_1, part_2...), and cache reuse behavior. No contradictions.

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?

Two sentences with zero fluff: first sentence defines purpose, second provides critical performance guidance. Every word 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?

The description covers core functionality and performance rules, but omits parameter semantics and lacks detail on what the indexed preview includes. Output schema exists, so return values are documented elsewhere, but parameter info is missing.

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 0%, and the description does not mention any parameter (data, include_preview). It fails to add meaning beyond the schema, leaving users to infer purpose and constraints of the two parameters.

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 'Cluster Model Space geometry and return part_1, part_2... with an indexed preview', specifying the verb (cluster and return) and resource (independent drawing parts). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like annotation_audit_dimensions or drawing, which have different purposes.

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?

Provides explicit performance rules: 'pass region, entity_ids, or selection='current' whenever possible' and 'reuse geometry_cache_token together with target_part_id...'. While no explicit when-not-to-use or alternatives, the guidance on efficient use is clear and actionable.

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