import_geometry

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral transparency burden. It discloses that geometry is added to the active design and reports counts of bodies and occurrences added to the root component. It could go deeper on error behavior or requirements, but gives useful side-effect and return-value context.

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 compact, front-loaded with the core action, and uses short parallel lines for the parameter details. No filler or repetition.

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 tool without an output schema or annotations, the description covers the main needed context: formats, path, design target, and return meaning. It could be more complete about failure modes or exact response shape, but it is sufficient for basic correct invocation.

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 input schema only lists 'format' and 'path' with no additional meaning. The description compensates fully by enumerating the exact supported format values and by explaining that path must be an absolute path to an existing file.

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 first sentence clearly states the action and target: 'Import geometry from a file into the active design.' The supported formats and return description add useful scoping. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like open_doc or export, so it stops short of full sibling distinction.

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 gives clear context: use this when importing one of the listed formats into the active design, with an absolute path to an existing file. It does not explicitly say when not to use it or direct the user to alternatives among the sibling tools.

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