Checks the active SolidWorks part for rebuild errors, multiple bodies, and geometry faults so you can identify model issues before editing or exporting.
Checks the active part for rebuild errors, multiple bodies, and geometry faults.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already establish that this is a safe, read-only, idempotent, non-destructive check. The description adds useful behavioral context by naming the specific problem classes it detects, which is meaningful beyond the annotations, though it does not describe outcomes on failure.
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. Every clause adds diagnostic scope information.
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 parameters and an output schema present, the description needn't explain return values. It adequately covers what the tool inspects, though it leaves some ambiguity about the relationship with check_interference and what the agent should do based on failures.
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 has zero parameters, so there is no parameter semantics to explain; baseline is 4. The schema is empty and fully covered, and the description does not need to compensate for any undocumented inputs.
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 gives a specific verb ('checks'), resource ('the active part'), and enumerates the exact fault classes inspected: rebuild errors, multiple bodies, and geometry faults. It is clear what the tool does, but it does not differentiate itself from the sibling check_interference, which could overlap in the mind of an agent.
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?
Usage is implied as a diagnostic/validation step on the active part, but the description gives no explicit when-to-use conditions, prerequisites, or comparison to check_interference. There are no exclusions or alternative-tool routing instructions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.