poly_get_edges

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 known. The description adds only pagination and the returned edge/vertex data; it doesn't disclose ordering, default object scope behavior, or edge representation beyond what schema fields already convey.

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 compact bilingual clauses with no filler and the core result is front-loaded. Every clause adds meaning.

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 simple read-only query with full schema coverage, the description conveys the essential result shape and pagination. However, with no output schema, it leaves the exact encoding of the returned vertices (indices vs coordinates) implicit rather than explicit.

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 limit, offset, and objects are already documented. The description adds no new parameter-level detail beyond restating pagination, so it stays at the baseline rather than improving on the schema.

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?

States a clear action (return), a concrete resource (each edge), and the exact payload (edge index plus the two connected vertices), with pagination explicitly mentioned. This distinguishes it from siblings like poly_get_verts and poly_get_faces even without naming them.

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 implies the use case—when edge connectivity or index data is needed—but does not explicitly say when to choose this tool over related polygon queries such as poly_get_verts or poly_get_faces. No exclusions, prerequisites, or alternative routing are provided.

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