plasticity_list_cad_reference_imports

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

Annotations already establish readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds substantial semantic context beyond annotations: records are historical provenance evidence tied to the document/revision at import time, and their body/mesh IDs are explicitly not current references. That caveat prevents a serious misinterpretation of returned IDs.

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 purpose before the behavioral caveat and then pagination guidance. Each sentence carries distinct information, though the pagination sentence is thin and could have been omitted or expanded.

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 read-only list tool whose annotations already cover safety, the description covers the core and an important provenance caveat. However, with no output schema and 0% schema description coverage, it does not describe the shape of returned records or give parameter details beyond 'offset/limit,' leaving some gaps an agent must infer.

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% for the two parameters (limit, offset), so the description must compensate. It only says to use offset/limit to page results, adding no detail about units, defaults, or the limit maximum of 100 already present in the schema. This is marginally helpful but far short of full compensation.

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 (list) and resource (persistent CAD reference import provenance records) and enumerates the covered formats (STEP, Parasolid, approximate 3MF reference meshes) from the local MCP store. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings such as plasticity_list_step_imports or plasticity_list_reference_meshes, but the multi-format scope is clear enough to route correctly.

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 only usage direction is 'Use offset/limit to page results,' which is pagination guidance rather than when-to-use-this-vs-alternatives. There is no mention of when to prefer this over plasticity_list_step_imports, plasticity_list_reference_meshes, or when to call plasticity_get_cad_reference_import instead.

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