catia_list_components

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint/openWorldHint annotations, it discloses that the return type changes shape depending on arguments (JSON list vs {total, offset, returned, components}) and that listings over 5000 components are silently cut and flagged truncated. These are non-obvious behavioral traits an agent must know.

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 resource, then behavior, then the large-assembly caveat, and every sentence carries information. It is dense but slightly run-on with three parenthetical asides, keeping it short of perfect.

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 present, the description steps in to describe both return shapes and the truncation flag, and it covers all four parameters' effects. Nothing an agent needs to invoke this correctly 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 coverage is 100% so the baseline is 3, but the description adds real meaning: a concrete path example ('Gearbox.1/Housing.1'), the clarification that depth 1 means direct children only, and that limit/offset page through direct children. That is more than the schema's bare one-liners convey.

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 resource (the product tree's components, recursively) and the exact payload returned (part number, file, origin + axes). It does not, however, distinguish itself from the sibling catia_get_tree or catia_list_bodies, which an agent may reasonably confuse it with.

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 covers the no-argument default ('the whole tree as a JSON list (unchanged)') and then gives the exact when-to-use rule for a large assembly ('do NOT list everything: pass path/depth/limit/offset'). This is precisely the routing guidance an agent needs.

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