catia_get_parameters

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 usefully clarifies that both user-defined and computed parameters are returned and that formulas and design tables are included, which is real content context. It says nothing about return format, ordering, or behavior when no part is active, so it is adequate but not rich.

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 short sentences, zero filler, with the core action front-loaded and the content enumeration second. Every clause contributes information an agent can act on.

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 one-parameter read-only listing tool with no output schema and annotations covering safety, the description is largely sufficient: it defines scope and returned content. Minor gaps remain around whether an active part must exist and how the result is structured, but neither is critical for correct invocation.

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% and the single 'filter' parameter is fully documented in the schema as an optional partial-match name filter. The description adds no example syntax, matching semantics, or scope notes beyond the schema, 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 (List) and resource (parameters) with clear scope: 'of the active part'. The inclusion of dimensions, formulas, and design tables sharpens what constitutes a parameter here. It does not, however, name or contrast itself with siblings such as catia_set_parameter (the write counterpart) or catia_get_tree, which also expose model metadata.

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?

No when-to-use guidance, prerequisites (e.g. an active part/documented open), or alternatives are given. An agent must infer that this is the read counterpart to catia_set_parameter rather than being told so. The scoping phrase 'active part' hints at context but is not framed as usage guidance.

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