creo_get_project_geometry

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the bar for additional behavioral disclosure is lower. The explicit statement 'The model is not saved or modified' adds concrete side-effect clarity beyond the generic hints and reassures an agent that the operation is safe.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence that lists the returned data efficiently and ends with a short side-effect note. Every clause adds relevant information, and there is no redundant or filler text.

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?

The description thoroughly enumerates the expected output data, which is important because there is no output schema. However, it omits the meaning of the required expected_model parameter and gives no guidance on when to prefer this tool over the many sibling query tools, leaving noticeable gaps for an agent.

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%: model_file has a description, but expected_model has only a regex pattern and no semantic explanation. The description provides context for model_file ('part file in the working directory') but never mentions or clarifies expected_model, which is a required parameter and likely crucial for correct invocation.

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 ('Read') and a clear resource: one Creo part in the current working directory. It enumerates the exact data returned (edge IDs, lengths, surface IDs, areas, extents), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like creo_get_dimensions, creo_get_features, and creo_get_mass_properties.

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 states the tool reads geometry from a part file in the working directory, but gives no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as creo_get_dimensions or creo_get_features. It names no sibling tools and provides no exclusions or conditions, leaving tool selection largely to inference.

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