Get CAD files and drawings

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds one genuinely useful behavioral fact — that it returns download links rather than file content — but says nothing about whether all types are returned by default, whether missing types are omitted, or how long links remain valid.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence enumerating the returned asset types with zero filler or redundancy. Nothing could be removed without losing content.

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?

The tool is simple: two parameters, annotations covering safety, and an output schema that carries the return-value detail. The description supplies the asset enumeration the schema lacks, so only the filtering semantics of `types` and default behavior remain unstated.

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 coverage is 50%: `code` has no description and `types` only says 'Only these document types'. The description partially compensates by spelling out the document types in human terms (IP certificate, CNC machining template, UV print template), which clarifies the more opaque enum values, but it never explains that `types` is a filter or what happens when it is omitted.

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 names a concrete resource — download links for an enclosure's drawings, DXF, STEP model, certificates and templates — so an agent knows exactly what comes back. It does not explicitly contrast itself with siblings like get_enclosure, but the file-asset focus is distinctive enough to separate it in practice.

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?

Usage is only implied: an agent can infer it is for retrieving downloadable CAD/document assets for a known enclosure. There is no statement of prerequisites (a valid enclosure code), no when-not guidance, and no pointer to a sibling if the code is unknown — search_enclosures or get_enclosure would be the obvious alternatives.

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