Check whether CADe_SIMU schematic text can be parsed and reconstructed exactly, confirming lossless round-trip.
Check whether the parser can reconstruct a CADe_SIMU document exactly.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| cad_text | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It implies a read-only check but does not explicitly state side effects or non-mutating behavior. It also fails to describe error conditions, performance, or what happens when reconstruction fails, leaving significant behavioral ambiguity.
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 sentence that is direct and front-loaded. It clearly states the action and the object with no wasted words. Every part earns its place.
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 with one parameter, and an output schema exists, covering return values. The description adequately conveys the operation's nature, though it lacks usage context and prerequisites. For a check-style tool, it is reasonably complete, but certain gaps remain.
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?
The schema defines a single string parameter 'cad_text' with no description. The description indirectly clarifies that the text is a CADe_SIMU document, adding some meaning beyond the schema. However, with schema description coverage at 0%, it barely compensates and does not elaborate on format, encoding, or constraints.
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 ('check') and resource ('whether the parser can reconstruct a CADe_SIMU document exactly'), making the purpose clear. It does not explicitly differentiate from siblings such as inspect_cad_text or validation_status, but the round-trip nature is evident from the name and description.
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 description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention conditions, prerequisites, or exclusions, and does not reference any sibling tools. An agent has no information about appropriate use case differentiation.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.