CADProps

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

Annotations only cover safety/idempotency; the description adds genuinely new behavioral context: the download link expires in 30 minutes, and the format fidelity caveat that STEP is only a solid B-Rep when the source was read exactly, otherwise a non-editable triangulated STEP. That is exactly the kind of downstream consequence an agent needs before choosing a target format.

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?

Three front-loaded sentences: action + return value first, then the fidelity caveat. Every sentence carries information an agent needs; no filler.

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?

With no output schema, the description responsibly describes the return (expiring download link) and the format trade-offs. Missing coverage of wait_seconds and of the ref input constraint keeps it short of complete for a four-parameter tool.

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 coverage is only 25%, so the description must compensate. It usefully clarifies the target enum semantics (solid vs triangulated STEP; STL/GLB always mesh), which illuminates the step_kind options. However, wait_seconds is never explained and the ref-vs-upload_ticket distinction lives only in the schema, leaving a real gap.

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 (Convert) and resource (a CAD file opened with inspect_cad), names the three output formats, and discloses the return value (a download link). An agent can distinguish this from inspect_cad, open_in_workspace and refresh_view_token without opening any schema.

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?

Clearly establishes the prerequisite that the file must already be opened via inspect_cad, which routes the agent along the correct workflow. It does not, however, state any when-not-to-use conditions or contrast explicitly with sibling tools for choosing alternatives.

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

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

Annotations already declare a safe read-only, closed-world operation, and the description goes well beyond that: it discloses partial/no-preview limitations for Creo and CATIA files, unverified units, the thumbnail-only fallback, and the ~1-hour deletion window. These are meaningful behavioral traits an agent cannot infer elsewhere.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded and the sentences each carry information. The ~50-entry format list is bulky but serves as legitimate reference data for format eligibility, so it mostly earns its space, though it could be condensed.

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 four-parameter tool with an output schema, the description supplies the formats, caveats, upload workflow, and data-retention details an agent needs. The remaining gaps are minor (wait_seconds behavior, ref continuation), and the output schema covers return values.

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 coverage is only 50%, so the description must compensate, and it does for the flow parameters: the no-file call leads to an upload link, the upload_ticket is used after the user confirms upload, and the retention window is stated. It still leaves wait_seconds and the ref-based continuation unaddressed, so it is strong but not complete.

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 ('Open a CAD file... report its format, size, volume, area, units and accuracy') and enumerates exactly what it returns. It is readily distinguishable from convert_cad and open_in_workspace without opening any schema.

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?

It gives real workflow guidance ('Call with no file to get a one-time upload link') and the upload-ticket handoff, which frames how to invoke it. However, it never states when to prefer this over convert_cad or open_in_workspace, and offers no explicit exclusions, so usage is implied rather than directed.

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

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

With annotations declaring readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, the description supplies the crucial context the annotations omit: the link is one-time, expires in 15 minutes, and opening it disables the chat preview and links for that file. That side effect sits in tension with destructiveHint=false, but it describes invalidation of an access artifact rather than data destruction, so it reads as added disclosure rather than a contradiction.

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, no filler, with the return value and its expiry front-loaded and the irreversible side effect placed second where it lands hardest.

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 one-param tool with no output schema and no nested objects, the description covers the return value, its lifetime, and the consequence of use — the essentials an agent needs. It does not address what happens on a second call or whether the ref remains usable elsewhere, minor gaps given the tool's simplicity.

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% and the single 'ref' parameter is fully documented in the schema, including the explicit contrast that 'An upload_ticket is not a ref.' The description adds nothing about parameters, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 and outcome — 'Return a one-time link ... that opens this file in the CADProps web workspace' — and scopes the resource to a single file. It is clearly distinct from inspect_cad/convert_cad/refresh_view_token in effect, though it never names a sibling to sharpen the contrast.

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?

Usage is only implied: 'for measuring, sectioning and sharing' hints at the intent, and the warning about previews/links stopping implies a point-of-no-return condition. There is no explicit when-to-use statement, no prerequisites, and no named alternative.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered without the description. The description adds useful context that the token is read-only and belongs to the CADProps preview, but says nothing about token lifetime, rotation, or what happens on an invalid ref.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; the subject and action come first. It is appropriately sized for a one-parameter utility 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 tool whose sole input is an opaque 'ref', the description omits the one thing an agent most needs: the provenance and format of that ref, plus any indication of renewal cadence or failure behavior. Annotations cover safety and no output schema exists, but the input-side gap leaves the definition under-specified.

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 single parameter 'ref' is completely undocumented in both the schema and the description. The description never explains what 'ref' is (a token id? a view id?) or where the caller obtains it, so it fails to compensate for the coverage gap.

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?

Names a specific verb (renew) and resource (the CADProps preview's read-only token), which is enough for an agent to distinguish it from convert_cad, inspect_cad, and open_in_workspace, none of which touch tokens. It stops short of explicitly contrasting itself with those siblings, so it lands at a solid 4 rather than 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?

The only contextual clue is 'used by the CADProps preview,' which identifies a consumer, not a condition for invocation. There is no statement of when an agent should call this versus another tool, no mention of token expiry or failure conditions, and no alternatives named.

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