catia_get_inertia

Does 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 adds genuine behavioral context beyond that: it discloses the exact result set and the conditional that mass is only returned 'if density is defined', which is important for interpreting results. It stops short of saying what happens when no part is active or in what units results are returned.

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 sentence, front-loaded with the operation and immediately followed by the return set. Every clause earns its place; nothing is redundant or padded.

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?

The tool is a read-only measurement with no output schema, so the description correctly enumerates the returned values in place of a schema. Parameters are fully covered by the input schema. Minor gaps remain (units of measure, failure mode with no active body), but nothing essential for invoking it 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so both parameters are already documented in the schema. The description only echoes the density-massing relationship already stated in the density parameter description, adding no new syntax or constraint information; baseline 3 applies when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 ('Get inertia properties of the active part') followed by an enumeration of exactly which properties are returned (volume, surface area, center of gravity, mass, moments of inertia). It doesn't differentiate itself from nearby measurement siblings such as catia_measure_distance, catia_get_bounding_box, or catia_measure_model, so it falls short of 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?

The description contains no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites (e.g. a part must be active/density must exist), and no mention of alternative measurement tools. Usage is only implied by the phrase 'of the active part'.

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