creo_display_project_model

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

The description is exceptionally transparent about what happens: load, verify, activate existing or create a dedicated window, refit, and foreground Creo, while promising no closing, replacing, saving, or modifying of other open model windows. It adds meaningful behavior beyond annotations, and there is no contradiction with readOnlyHint since file-level data is not mutated.

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 dense and front-loaded, but it earns its length by packing many distinct behavioral guarantees into a single coherent chain. It is not bloated, though the single long sentence is slightly harder to parse than a structured breakdown would be.

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 display-focused tool, the description covers source directory, model scope, verification behavior, window activation/creation, refit, foregrounding, and non-destructive guarantees. Missing failure behavior and more explicit parameter-value semantics prevent a 5, especially given 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%, so the description must carry the burden. It does imply that model_file refers to the direct-child Creo file in the working directory and that expected_model is the model name/type to verify. However, it does not define exact filename formats, file-type vocabulary, path-versus-filename expectations, or what happens on mismatch.

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 names a specific workflow: read the live working directory, load a direct-child part or assembly, verify its expected model name and file type, activate/create a window, refit, and foreground Creo. This is far more specific than the name alone and makes it distinguishable from project-folder-based sibling tools, especially with the explicit 'No configured or caller-supplied project folder is used.'

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 clearly states the intended context: the current Creo session's already-selected working directory, targeting only direct-child models, and explicitly excluding configured or caller-supplied project folders. It does not name sibling tools as alternatives, so it stops short of a full 5.

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