catia_list_constraints

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

Annotations already declare this a safe read (readOnlyHint=true) with no open-world access. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context by disclosing what the call returns — constraint type, OK/broken status, and a naming audit — which matters because there is no output schema.

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?

One sentence, front-loaded with the resource and scope, and the trailing 'plus a naming audit' addendum is short enough to earn its place. No filler or restatement of the tool name.

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 parameterless read with no output schema, the description covers the main missing piece — what is returned — including status values and an extra audit. It stops short of stating preconditions (active session/document) or whether non-root/sketch constraints appear.

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 syntax the description needs to explain. The description's implicit constraint that the listing is limited to the root assembly is a scope note, not a parameter.

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 clear verb+resource (list every constraint) with an explicit scope (root assembly) and enumerates what is reported: type and status. The root-assembly scoping implicitly separates it from catia_sketch_constraint, but the distinction is never made explicit.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites (e.g. a connected session with an open assembly), and no routing to alternatives such as catia_sketch_get_geometry or catia_list_features when the agent needs different information.

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