gh_cad_query_components

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. 'Query' implies a read-only operation, but the description does not state whether it has side effects, whether it reads from the current document or a static catalog, or what the output contains. The existence of an output schema helps, but the description itself adds minimal behavioral transparency.

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?

The description is a single efficient sentence with no filler and the core subject front-loaded. It loses a point because it is so terse that it omits parameter semantics and usage guidance, but as a concise opening statement it is well structured.

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 two-parameter query tool with no annotations, the description is incomplete. It does not explain what search and subcategory do, what kind of results are returned, or how this query relates to the other gh_cad workflow tools. The presence of an output schema covers return structure, but the input semantics and workflow context remain 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 description coverage is 0%, and the description does not compensate. The two parameters, 'search' and 'subcategory', are completely unexplained; the description does not mention filtering, accepted values, wildcard behavior, or how they relate to the 87+ components. An agent would have to guess at the meaning and format of both parameters.

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?

The description clearly states the action ('Query') and the resource ('87+ AutoCAD Grasshopper battery components from Rhino.Inside.AutoCAD'). The resource is specific enough to distinguish it from the many drawing and entity tools. However, it does not explicitly contrast with sibling gh_cad tools like gh_cad_build_pipeline or gh_cad_set_param_and_solve, leaving some differentiation to inference from the name.

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 description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention that this is for discovering available components before building a Grasshopper pipeline, nor does it name any sibling tool as an alternative. Usage context is only weakly implied by the tool name and sibling list.

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