compile_feature_plan_from_drawing_spec

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It clearly states the tool does not mutate SolidWorks and returns tool names and parameters. However, it lacks details on error handling (e.g., missing drawing_spec_id), rate limits, or return format specifics.

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 extremely concise: two sentences that front-load the core purpose, then add behavioral context and supported archetypes. Every sentence adds value with no wasted words.

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?

Given the single parameter, lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description could be more complete. It states supported archetypes but does not mention prerequisites (e.g., a recorded DrawingSpec), behavior for unsupported archetypes, or the format of the returned plan. Some 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 input schema has 0% description coverage (no parameter descriptions). The tool description does not compensate: it only mentions 'stored DrawingSpec' indirectly, with no explanation of what drawing_spec_id is, how to obtain it, or its format. This is a critical gap given the low schema coverage.

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 clearly states the tool's function: 'Compile a stored DrawingSpec into an ordered FeaturePlan.' It uses a specific verb and resource, and distinguishes itself from siblings like run_feature_plan by noting it is 'Advisory only' and does not mutate SolidWorks.

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 explicitly states when to use this tool ('Advisory only' for planning without execution) and lists supported archetypes. However, it does not explicitly state prerequisites (e.g., requiring a previously recorded DrawingSpec) or when to avoid using it in favor of alternatives.

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