inspect_cad_text

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does add 'non-destructive' which informs the agent that this operation does not modify anything – a useful trait. However, it does not mention other relevant behaviors such as error handling, performance, or whether it is safe to call repeatedly. Given the simplicity of the operation, this level of disclosure is adequate but not rich.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence that immediately identifies the resource and action. It contains no filler, and every word contributes to the meaning. It is concise yet precise.

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 is simple (one input, one parsing action), an output schema exists to define the return value, and the description covers the purpose and non-destructive nature. It does not mention potential prerequisites or edge cases, but given the low complexity and presence of an output schema, the description is largely complete for a correct invocation.

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 0% for the single parameter 'cad_text'. The description adds meaning by specifying it is 'CADe_SIMU text', which clarifies the expected input format beyond the bare schema. However, it does not elaborate on the exact structure, encoding, or size limits, leaving some ambiguity. Since there is only one parameter, this is a minimal but necessary clarification.

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 clear verb ('Parse'), a specific resource ('CADe_SIMU text'), and the output ('non-destructive component summary'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like roundtrip_cad_text (roundtrip), known_type_codes (type codes), and validation_status (validation) without ambiguity.

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?

There is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description implies it is for inspecting CADe_SIMU text, but it does not mention scenarios such as wanting type codes, validation, or generation, nor does it name any alternative tools. The context is implicit rather than stated.

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