Analyzes existing macro code and suggests improvements to boost performance and reliability in SolidWorks workflows.
Optimize an existing macro for better performance and reliability.
This tool analyzes and suggests improvements to existing macro code.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| input_data | Yes | The input data value. |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Ambiguous whether it modifies the macro or just suggests improvements. No disclosure of side effects, permissions, or safety. No annotations to compensate.
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?
Two sentences, no wasted words. Could benefit from more structure, but conciseness is good.
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?
Lacks details on input expectations, output (output schema exists but not described), and differentiation from similar tools. Incomplete for reliable agent use.
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?
Single generic 'input_data' param with vague schema description. The tool description adds no clarity on what data to provide (e.g., macro code or name).
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?
Clearly states 'optimize an existing macro' with verb+resource. Differentiates from 'analyze_macro' by implying improvements, though not sharply.
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?
No guidance on when to use versus alternatives like 'analyze_macro' or 'execute_macro'. Missing context for prerequisites.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.