plasticity_get_cad_reference_import

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description genuinely adds beyond them: that records are historical (potentially stale), that STEP/Parasolid carry exact B-Rep measurements while 3MF carries only approximate mesh bounds and topology counts, and that IDs must be re-validated against the live scene.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the core action, then format semantics, then the staleness caveat. No filler and every sentence carries distinct 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 output schema, the description partially compensates by describing what record contents differ by format (measurements vs bounds/topology counts). It does not enumerate returned fields or error behavior, but for a single-record read this is close to complete.

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?

There is one parameter, id, with 0% schema description coverage and no explanation in the description. The text implies the id identifies a stored provenance record, but does not say its source (a listing call) or that non-existent IDs will fail. Minimal compensation for the undocumented 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?

The description states a specific verb (read) and resource (one persistent CAD reference import provenance record) and enumerates the supported formats (STEP, Parasolid, 3MF). It distinguishes itself from list-style siblings by emphasizing 'one ... record,' but does not name the sibling that produces the id (e.g., list_cad_reference_imports) or get_step_import.

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: fetch a single stored record by id, and the closing sentence warns to verify the current scene before reusing stored IDs. However, it never states when to prefer this over plasticity_list_cad_reference_imports, plasticity_get_step_import, or plasticity_list_step_imports, so the routing among these closely named siblings is left to inference.

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