plasticity_get_step_import

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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint/destructiveHint=false; the description goes further by disclosing that STEP and Parasolid records yield exact native B-Rep measurements whereas 3MF records yield approximate mesh bounds and topology counts (not editable B-Rep), plus the staleness caveat. That content-type/semantics distinction is real value beyond structured fields, though return shape and error behavior are unstated.

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 the payload distinction, then the staleness warning. No redundancy and every clause carries 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 and minimal annotations, the description carries the burden well: it explains what kinds of records exist and what each returns qualitatively, and warns about staleness. It stops short of describing the record's actual fields or what an invalid/expired id does, but it is adequate for a single-param read.

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?

Only one parameter (id) and schema description coverage is 0% – the schema supplies format/pattern but no meaning. The description implies the id identifies one provenance record but adds nothing about where the id comes from or its relation to the list tools, so it only partially compensates for the coverage gap.

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 ('Read one') and resource ('persistent CAD reference import provenance record'), and enumerates the three record kinds (STEP, Parasolid, 3MF). An agent can distinguish it from the list/get siblings such as plasticity_list_step_imports and plasticity_list_cad_reference_imports.

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?

Implies usage context ('The record is historical; verify the current scene before using any stored body or mesh ID'), which is useful operational guidance, but never states when to prefer this tool over the near-duplicate plasticity_get_cad_reference_import or how to obtain the required id. Guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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