catia_open_document

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds only that the document must already exist, without stating what happens on failure, whether the document becomes active, or how it interacts with the connected session. With annotations carrying the safety signal, this is partial value.

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 no filler. It could be slightly tighter but nothing is wasted.

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 single-parameter open operation with annotations covering safety, the description is minimally sufficient. It omits return value (e.g., document handle/status) and any session prerequisites, which would help in the context of ~90 sibling tools and no output schema.

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 the single parameter already has a description ('Full path to the CATIA document to open'). The description echoes the file path concept and adds accepted extensions, but the schema does most of the work. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 ('open') and resource ('existing CATIA document') and enumerates the accepted file types (.CATPart, .CATProduct, .CATDrawing). It does not explicitly differentiate from sibling loaders like catia_list_documents or catia_connect, but the operation is clear enough to distinguish.

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?

The word 'existing' implies this is for already-saved documents, and the file extensions narrow scope. However, it does not state when to use this versus siblings such as catia_list_documents, catia_connect, or catia_new_part. No explicit when/when-not guidance.

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