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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, closed-world and non-destructive, so safety is covered. The description adds value by saying the payload is a model script in uCAD's language rather than metadata — useful context about the return content. It does not describe format, size, or whether the script is executable as-is.

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?

One sentence, front-loaded with the resource and its keying, then the purpose. Slightly ornate phrasing ('a finished model built carefully') but no wasted clauses or repetition.

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?

A simple single-parameter read tool with full annotation coverage and an enumerated id set; the description covers what is returned at a high level. It leaves the return format (plain text script? structured?) unstated, which is the main remaining gap since there is no output schema.

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%, but there is a single parameter whose enum of 15 self-descriptive names (villa, teapot, gears, flange…) makes the values largely interpretable. The description does add meaning by stating the ids come from the 'specs' listing, which is not in the schema. It says nothing about behavior for an invalid id.

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 resource — the script of a reference example selected by id — and characterizes it as a finished model written in uCAD's language. The title supplies the verb ('Read'), and the reference to the sibling tool 'specs' clarifies the source of the ids. It is clear, though the verb is not in the description itself.

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?

'to learn from before building something like it' implies the usage context (study an example prior to authoring a similar model), which is real but indirect guidance. There is no explicit statement of when not to use it, nor a named alternative such as run_script for actually executing a model.

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