creo_display_safe_model

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

The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond the annotations: it explicitly states this changes only the UI display and does not save or modify model data, and it mentions the foregrounding behavior. This complements the idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false annotations without contradicting them.

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 two sentences with no redundancy. The primary action is front-loaded, followed by key behavioral constraints, and every clause earns its place.

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 display action with only two parameters and no output schema, the description covers the core behavior, safety profile, and side effects. It does not detail failure cases or validation mismatches between model_file and expected_model, but these are not necessary for basic invocation.

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?

Both parameters are fully documented in the schema with 100% coverage. The description reinforces that model_file lives in the safe output directory but does not add significant new meaning beyond the schema descriptions.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: load a Creo part from the safe output directory, display it, refit the view, and bring Creo to the foreground. It clearly identifies the tool's scope and differentiates it from sibling creo_display_project_model by mentioning the safe output directory.

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 implies the intended use case—displaying a model from the safe output directory—but does not explicitly state when to choose this tool over alternatives like creo_display_project_model or when not to use it. No explicit exclusions or alternative routing are provided.

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