catia_connect

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

Annotations cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true), and the description adds genuinely new behavioral detail: the dual attach-or-launch mode and the mandatory ordering constraint. It leaves out what happens on failure (no instance, CATIA not installed) and whether multiple calls are safe, which keeps it below a 5.

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?

Three short sentences, zero waste, with the action stated first and the critical prerequisite placed at the end where it reads as a rule rather than an afterthought. Every sentence 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 zero-parameter bootstrap tool with no output schema, the description supplies the essentials: what it connects to, how it obtains an instance, and when it must run. Error/edge-case behavior is the only real gap, and it is a minor one at this complexity level.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so the schema imposes no documentation burden and the baseline of 4 applies. The description correctly does not fabricate parameter detail.

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?

Specific verb+resource ('Connect to CATIA V5') with the exact behavioral scope spelled out: it either attaches to an existing instance or launches a new one. This distinctively separates it from sibling catia_disconnect and from every operation tool that assumes a live session.

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?

States a hard prerequisite — 'Must be called before any other CATIA tool' — which is exactly the sequencing guidance an agent needs for a session-bootstrap tool. It does not name catia_disconnect as the teardown counterpart or describe re-connect behavior, so it stops short of full when/when-not coverage.

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