import_iges

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden, yet it discloses nothing beyond the verb. It does not say whether path or content is required, what happens on duplicate imports, whether the operation is undoable, or how encoding affects the payload.

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 short sentence is front-loaded, but this is under-specification rather than conciseness. Nothing here earns its place because nothing substantive is said.

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 three-parameter ingest tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema description coverage, this definition is completely inadequate. An agent cannot determine the required invocation shape or the effect of the call.

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% for all three parameters, and the description does not compensate: it never mentions path, content, or the utf8/base64 encoding choice. An agent gets no meaning for any parameter from either source.

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?

'Import IGES content' states a verb and resource, so the basic purpose is identifiable. However, it does nothing to distinguish this from the many sibling import tools (import_step, import_stl, import_obj, import_dwg), which is exactly where an agent needs help.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this versus the other import_* siblings, no mention of prerequisites, and no indication of how the result is integrated into the drawing. The agent must infer usage entirely.

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