geometry_get_boundaries

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the return content ('boundaries with their numbers and areas') and frames the operation as a preparatory read, but says nothing about permissions, side effects, or whether it requires a built geometry. Adequate but incomplete for an un-annotated tool.

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?

Front-loads the purpose, then adds usage, then Args/Returns sections. Efficient and well-organized, though the docstring-style Args/Returns blocks are slightly formulaic for a 3-parameter tool.

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 geometry inspection tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, usage context, parameter defaults, and the shape of the returned data. Nothing critical an agent needs to call it correctly 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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description compensates by explaining all three parameters, including the non-obvious default semantics: geometry_name defaults to the first geometry and model_name defaults to the current model. This adds meaning the bare schema titles do not convey.

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 specific verb and resource: 'Get all boundaries from a geometry with their properties.' An agent can distinguish this from siblings like geometry_list or geometry_list_features without opening the schema. It stops short of explicitly contrasting those siblings, which keeps it from a 5.

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?

Gives a concrete when-to-use: 'Use this to identify which boundary numbers correspond to which faces before setting boundary conditions.' That is a clear sequencing/context hint that ties it to the physics boundary-condition setup tools. No when-not-to-use or named alternative is offered, so not a 5.

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