catia_get_tree

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds real content-level behavior: the tree includes absorbed bodies, and the result carries a naming AUDIT flagging default names with concrete patterns ('Extrusion.3', 'Esquisse.2', 'Corps principal'). It says nothing about output format or cost, which keeps it from 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?

Front-loaded with the core purpose, then density of examples (default-name patterns) that an agent can act on. Slightly long and example-heavy, but every clause carries information; 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 and does so well: it describes the tree's composition and the audit payload, plus the corrective action to take. An agent can call it and interpret the result without further documentation.

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 baseline is 4; there is no parameter surface for the description to clarify, and it correctly focuses on output content instead.

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 and resource ('Specification tree of the active Part') and enumerates exactly what the tree contains: bodies (including those absorbed by boolean ops), sketches, features, planes, and geometrical sets, plus a naming audit. It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like catia_list_features or catia_list_bodies that return narrower slices.

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?

Gives explicit timing guidance ('Run it after each piece and fix every flagged name before saving'), which tells the agent when this belongs in a workflow. It does not name alternatives or exclusions (e.g., when to prefer catia_audit_model or catia_list_features), so it stops short of the 5 tier.

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