list_dimensions

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world, so the safety profile is given. The description adds genuinely useful context that returned measurements are in mm, degrees, and kg, and hints that results may carry error evidence, but it says nothing about result shape, whether dimensions come from the active document, or what happens when none exist.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the verb, which is good. However, the second and third sentences are loosely connected marketing-flavored claims rather than information that helps an agent call the tool.

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 listing tool with an undocumented filter parameter and no output schema, the description should clarify what a dimension entry is and how filtering works. Neither is covered, so an agent has no basis for interpreting the "contains" argument or the returned records beyond units.

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 single optional parameter "contains" has 0% schema description coverage, and the description never mentions it at all — no indication of whether it is a case-sensitive substring match on dimension names, a type filter, or something else. With zero schema-side documentation, the description was the only place this could be explained and it is not.

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?

"List dimensions" gives a clear verb and resource, but the description never says whose dimensions (feature, sketch, body, or drawing dimensions) or what a "dimension" record contains, so an agent cannot cleanly separate it from siblings like list_features, list_bodies, or get_bounding_box. The trailing phrases about an "independent native SOLIDWORKS engine" and "error evidence" add atmosphere rather than scope.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use guidance and no mention of alternatives. The closest thing is "Inspect verified measurements and error evidence," which vaguely implies post-build verification, but it never states when an agent should call this instead of get_mass_properties, get_bounding_box, or list_features.

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