catia_lessons

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 by structured data. The description adds value beyond that: entries are 'verified live' (a trust/quality signal) and the no-query call returns critical rules by default, which is real behavioral context. It stops short of describing output shape or entry count behavior, so a 4 rather than 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?

Three sentences, zero filler, front-loaded with the resource and verb, then the invocation triggers, then the default behavior. Every sentence earns its place.

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?

There is no output schema, so the burden of hinting at returns falls partly on the description; it does describe the content ('critical rules') and the verification provenance, which is enough for an agent to know what it will get. A brief note on entry shape or ordering would have closed the remaining gap.

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 coverage is 100% and all four filters (area, tool, limit, query) are documented with examples and an enum-like area list in the schema. The description adds meaning the schema does not: the query parameter is optional and omitting it returns the critical rules, which is a genuine default-behavior disclosure beyond the field docs.

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 ('Search the knowledge base of proven CATIA V5 automation pitfalls and rules') and distinguishes itself from siblings by naming a concrete content domain, with catia_add_lesson as its obvious write counterpart. An agent can immediately tell this is a read-only lookup of curated lessons, not a modeling or query-execution tool.

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?

Explicitly names the trigger conditions — before risky operations (with a parenthetical enumerating topology selection, boolean ops, assembly constraints, measurements) or after an unexplained COM error — and states the no-query fallback behavior. Nothing is left to inference about when to reach for this tool.

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