catia_clash_analysis

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

Annotations already cover the read-only, closed-world safety profile, and the description adds genuine behavioral context: the analysis object is removed afterwards so the product tree stays clean, and it defines what constitutes a clash and the coordinate frame of 'at' points. It does not discuss runtime cost on large assemblies, but the extra side-effect disclosure is substantive.

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?

Compact and front-loaded – the core purpose leads, followed by result semantics and the cleanup side effect. The parenthetical UI navigation is arguably extra, but it aids disambiguation at low cost.

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?

With no output schema, the description usefully describes what is returned (clash list with interference points in assembly coordinates, plus a contact count) and the post-run state. That covers the essentials for a simple check tool, though it omits details like whether clashes are ordered or capped by max_list.

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 100% for the single max_list parameter, so the schema already documents its meaning and default. The description adds no hints about truncation or ordering behavior, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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?

States a specific action (interference check) on a specific resource (whole assembly), and clarifies the two outputs: a list of CLASHes and a count of CONTACTS. It also anchors the operation to the CATIA UI path, making it clearly distinct from siblings like catia_measure_distance or catia_get_bounding_box.

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?

Explains how to interpret results ('A correct assembly has 0 clash, except intended press fits / cosmetic threads'), which implies the intended use, but never explicitly says when to run this versus alternatives or what prerequisites exist. Usage is inferable rather than stated.

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