content_center

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does so well: it discloses that calls are cheap but the full tree is slow, that length>0 creates a custom member that is saved to disk with a default path, and that length=0 yields a standard member. It does not describe error behavior for invalid paths or whether an existing file is overwritten.

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 purpose sentence, then a compact example ladder that conveys the recursion better than prose, then terse arg notes. Every line adds information; no filler.

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 recursive browse-and-materialize tool with an output schema present, the description covers the traversal model, the file side effect, and downstream consumption. The only omission is the 'instance' parameter, which the schema already documents.

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 only 17%, so the description must compensate, and it does for five of six parameters: category path syntax ('/'-separated), family, size (spaces and case ignored), length in mm with 0 = standard member, and file_name with its default template. Only 'instance' is left to the schema's own description.

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 (browse the Content Center) and the concrete output (a part file path usable by place_component / place_many). This distinguishes it from the many geometry/assembly siblings without needing to open the schema.

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 step-by-step ladder shows exactly how to drill from top categories down to a sized member, and notes the whole tree takes minutes so a path should be supplied. It clearly hands off to place_component/place_many downstream, though it doesn't state when to prefer other sources (e.g. frame_members, import_step) instead.

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