creo_get_project_dimensions

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, and the description's 'read-only list' is consistent with those. It adds useful behavioral context by naming the returned data categories and the session-scoped working directory requirement, which goes beyond the annotations.

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 one dense sentence with no wasted words. It front-loads the read-only nature, then the target resource, scope, and returned contents. Every clause earns its place and no information is repeated from the schema or annotations.

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?

Because there is no output schema, the description usefully enumerates the returned fields. It covers the input context and read-only behavior. It lacks an explicit pointer to the sibling creo_get_dimensions for the non-project case, which would make it fully complete.

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?

The schema only defines model_file as a string with length limits; the description adds meaning by indicating the parameter targets a Creo part stored under the current live working directory. It does not explicitly state the expected filename/path format, but for a single simple parameter this is reasonably compensated.

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 verb and resource: a 'read-only list of standard dimensions for one Creo part'. It clearly scopes the tool to a part in the live working directory and enumerates exactly what is returned (IDs, symbols, values, relation-driven state, owning features). This differentiates it from the many sibling creation/modification tools.

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 provides a clear usage context: use this when you need standard dimensions for a project part already stored in the current live working directory. It does not explicitly contrast with the sibling creo_get_dimensions, nor state when not to use this tool, 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.