get_active_part

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the description does not need to restate that this is a safe read operation. It adds the qualifier 'active' to indicate it targets the current document, which is useful behavioral context beyond the schema. However, it does not disclose what kind of inspection is performed, what data is returned, or any side effects (though there are none). The description is consistent with annotations, so no contradiction.

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 a single, compact sentence that front-loads the verb and resource. It contains no filler or redundant phrasing. Every word earns its place, and it is appropriately sized for a tool with no parameters and simple semantics.

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, no-parameter tool with an output schema (which presumably details the return structure), the description is largely complete. An agent knows it inspects the active part document and that it is safe. However, given the large sibling list, a more explicit note about what kind of inspection (e.g., 'returns a summary of the part's properties') would help an agent decide when to call it. Still, the simplicity and annotation coverage make it sufficient for 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 tool has zero parameters, so the input schema is empty and schema description coverage is 100% (trivially). The baseline for no parameters is 4, and the description does not need to add parameter semantics. It does not introduce any confusion, and the description's focus on the resource ('active part document') is sufficient.

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 clear verb ('Inspect') and a specific resource ('the active Mastercam part document'), which makes the tool's purpose unambiguous. It does not explicitly differentiate from the many sibling inspection tools (e.g., get_geometry_summary, get_selection), but the 'active part document' scope is distinct enough that a capable agent can infer its role. It is not a tautology and is more specific than a generic 'inspect'.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus any of the numerous sibling tools that also inspect parts or geometries. It does not mention alternatives, exclusions, or any context such as 'use this to get the current part's overall status' or 'prefer get_geometry_summary for detailed geometry'. An agent is left to guess when this is the right choice.

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