list_model_dimensions

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

No annotations are provided, and the description carries the safety burden itself by declaring "Read-only" up front. It also discloses the key semantic of the return payload (full_name format like "D1@Sketch1") and that it scopes to the active document. It does not mention failure modes (no active document, non-driving/reference dimensions), which keeps it from a 5.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action in the first sentence, then the read-only/safety note and the downstream-use hint. The final sentence about feature_name partially duplicates both the opening clause and the schema, so it is slightly less than maximally tight.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described; the description still usefully explains the one field that matters (full_name) and its downstream consumer. With zero annotations and a single optional parameter, an agent has enough to call it correctly, though document-state prerequisites are 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 100%, so the baseline is 3; the description goes beyond the schema by explaining what the returned full_name means and that it feeds set_dimension/get_dimension, which the schema cannot convey. The feature_name guidance largely restates the schema's own example and default, so it is additive but not exhaustive.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ("List every dimension in the active part or assembly") plus the scope qualifier and the shape of the output ("with its full name"). It is easy to separate from get_dimension/set_dimension, which operate on a single known dimension, and from list_features, which lists features not dimensions.

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?

Explicitly routes the agent: the full_name is "the name set_dimension / get_dimension accept, so this is how to find and edit any driving dimension" — a clear discover-then-edit workflow naming the alternatives. It also gives the narrowing condition for feature_name. It stops short of stating exclusions (e.g. when to call get_dimension directly because you already know the name), so not a full 5.

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