Measure a CATIA V5 body's exact bounding box, including solid and curved shapes, returning x/y/z min/max and size in mm to verify it against a drawing.
Exact bounding box (mm) of a body's solid, curved shapes included: x/y/z [min, max] and size. Use it to check a piece against its drawing.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| body_name | No | Body to measure (default: active body). |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.4.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description usefully adds that the result is exact, in mm, includes curved geometry, and reports min/max plus size, but says nothing about performance, precision limits, or behavior on empty/invalid bodies.
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?
Two compact sentences with the output shape (x/y/z [min,max] and size) front-loaded ahead of the usage hint. No filler.
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 carries the burden of describing the return value and does so explicitly (min, max, size per axis, in mm, curved faces included). Completeness is good; only measurement caveats and edge-case behavior are absent.
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?
Only one parameter and schema coverage is 100% – the schema already documents body_name and its active-body default. The description adds no syntax or naming guidance beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline 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 verb+resource (bounding box of a body's solid) and is precise about scope and units ('Exact ... (mm)', 'curved shapes included'). It does not explicitly contrast with siblings like catia_measure_distance or catia_get_inertia, which is the only thing keeping it from a 5.
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?
Offers one concrete use case ('check a piece against its drawing') but gives no when-not conditions and never names an alternative measurement tool among the many siblings. Usage is implied rather than routed.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.