discover_solidworks_docs

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It explains the tool creates a searchable index of documentation, implying a read-only operation. However, it fails to explicitly state that the tool does not modify any SolidWorks files or require special permissions. The behavioral traits are partially disclosed but could be more precise.

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 short (two sentences) and front-loads the core action. It is efficient and contains no redundant information. However, the second sentence could be integrated into the first to reduce length slightly, but it is not overly verbose.

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 has a moderate complexity: one parameter with three sub-fields and an output schema (not shown in description, but context signals indicate existence). The description covers the main purpose and output (searchable index) without detailing return values—but that gap is mitigated by the output schema. Given the available structured information, the description is sufficiently complete for an agent to decide when to use the tool.

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 100%, and each parameter in the input schema (year, output_dir, include_vba) already has clear descriptions. The tool description does not add any extra meaning or usage hints beyond what the schema provides. Therefore, it meets the baseline but does not exceed it.

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 uses strong action verbs ('Discover and index') and specifies the resource ('SolidWorks COM and VBA documentation'). It clearly states the outcome ('creates a searchable index') and the utility ('building context for intelligent MCP tool selection'). This distinguishes it well from sibling tools that focus on modeling, drawing, or export operations.

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 implies usage context: 'Useful for building context for intelligent MCP tool selection and documentation queries.' This indicates when an agent would invoke this tool. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or suggest alternative tools for other needs. Given the sibling list includes many other tool categories, the implied usage is reasonably clear.

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