poly_get_faces

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the read-safe nature is covered. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond that: it is paginated and returns face-level data, which helps the agent understand what a call will do without guessing.

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 compact, front-loaded with the operation and payload, and contains no filler. The bilingual repetition is justified and does not dilute the message; every sentence carries 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?

The tool has no output schema, so the description compensates by listing exactly what is returned per face: index, vertices, normal, and material ID. It is sufficient for a read-only topology query, though it does not detail the exact output formatting of vertices/normals, which is a minor gap.

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 well documented. The description reinforces the 'paginated' nature but does not add new parameter-level details beyond what the schema provides, which aligns with the baseline of 3.

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 states a specific verb ('return') and resource ('per face') with concrete fields: index, constituent vertices, normal direction, and material ID. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like poly_get_verts and poly_get_edges by the face-level granularity and the listed data.

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 explicitly frames the tool as 'great for reading geometry topology,' which gives clear context for when to use it. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state exclusions, but the use case is concrete enough for an agent to route a topology-read request here.

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