catia_drawing_check

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

The description goes well beyond the sparse annotations: it discloses the closed-loop workflow, the tolerances applied, the error behavior of fail_on_mismatch (exit code 1), the return shape (JSON with ok and per-view details), and two real limits (blind holes only visible from the open side, sub-2mm circles ignored). readOnlyHint=true is not contradicted since it only exports a temporary PDF.

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 critical framing ('CLOSED-LOOP CHECK') is front-loaded, followed by what is checked, the data source, and the limits. It is dense and slightly overpacked into a few long sentences, but nearly every clause carries information an agent needs.

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 9-parameter verification tool with no output schema and minimal annotations, the description is substantially complete: it covers inputs, data sources, tolerances, limits, and the failure mode. It could still say more about when the check is appropriate relative to sibling QA tools, but nothing needed to invoke it correctly is missing.

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?

With 67% schema coverage, the description compensates by explaining the semantics of `source` (catia_list_faces + catia_get_bounding_box of the active body), `expected` (the override structure), `views` (which views a blind hole appears in), and the tolerance defaults (0.02 mm diameter, 0.05 mm centre). This adds real meaning over the raw schema.

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 opening line names a specific verb chain and resource: 'export the drawing to PDF, read it back and compare it with the 3D model.' It is immediately distinguishable from siblings like drawing_render, drawing_overlay, or drawing_extract_geometry, which do not perform a 3D-vs-PDF comparison.

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?

It tells the agent what the check covers, what the defaults are (export temp PDF, check all views) and the condition that switches the 3D side ('unless `expected` is given'). It stops short of explicitly contrasting with alternatives such as catia_audit_model or drawing_overlay, so no 'when not to use'.

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