Compute the intersection of two elements, such as a surface and a reference plane, to derive shared curves or points for downstream CAD geometry.
Create the intersection of two elements (e.g. surface ∩ plane).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | No | Optional name for the result | |
| element1 | Yes | First element name | |
| element2 | Yes | Second element: 'xy', 'yz', 'zx', or element name |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.4.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the mutation profile is covered structurally, but the description adds nothing behavioral — it does not say whether the result is placed in the active geoset, whether inputs are consumed, or what happens if the elements do not intersect. No contradiction with annotations.
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 front-loaded sentence with zero filler; the verb+resource leads and the example clarifies immediately.
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 geometry-creation tool with no output schema and no annotations on result placement, the description is adequate but thin: it omits where the result lands, how it is named if 'name' is omitted, and what failure modes exist. An agent could call it, but not confidently.
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 required parameters are already documented, including the 'xy'/'yz'/'zx' plane options for element2. The description only adds an illustrative example of the operand types, which is marginal value over the schema baseline.
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 ('Create the intersection of two elements') and gives a concrete example ('surface ∩ plane') that pins down the operation. It is distinguishable from siblings like catia_gsd_trim or catia_boolean_operation, though it never names them explicitly.
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, no prerequisites, and no routing to alternatives. An agent must guess whether intersection is preferred over catia_gsd_split, catia_gsd_trim, or catia_boolean_operation for a given modeling situation.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.