get_high_level_parameters

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. Beyond implying a read ('Return'), it says nothing about session requirements, whether the operation fails for missing components, what shape the returned parameters take, or any side effects.

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 short sentence with the key noun front-loaded after the verb; there is no filler. Its brevity is more under-specification than verbosity, but structurally it is efficient.

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?

This is a simple 2-parameter read with no output schema. The description states the resource clearly but leaves both required parameters undocumented and gives no information about what is returned. Given the simplicity, that is a moderate gap rather than a fatal one.

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?

With schema description coverage at 0%, the description must explain session_id and component_uid, but it adds no meaning at all for either. An agent can only guess that component_uid identifies the target component and session_id refers to an open CPACS session.

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 states a specific verb ('Return') and resource ('high-level design parameters') scoped to 'a component', so the operation itself is unambiguous. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from near-neighbors like get_configuration_summary or get_component_metadata, which likely return different data for the same component.

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 call this versus its siblings (e.g. get_configuration_summary, get_component_metadata) or versus set_high_level_parameters. The only implied context is that a component must exist, and nothing about prerequisites is stated.

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