new_part

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It states that the tool requires SolidWorks already running (does not launch it), activates a new part, and uses legacy creation if no default template exists. It also specifies the return value. However, it does not describe error behavior if SolidWorks is not open or if creation fails, which would improve transparency.

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 bilingual (Spanish/English) and well-structured: purpose, usage, return type, caveat. Each sentence provides essential information with no fluff. However, the repetition of content in both languages slightly reduces conciseness; a single-language description could be shorter.

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 tool's simplicity (no parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description covers the necessary context: creation action, activation, prerequisite (SW open), fallback for missing template, and return format. Missing details include potential error states or what happens if the tool is called when SW is closed. Still, it is reasonably complete for a straightforward tool.

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 tool has no parameters and schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaning beyond the schema by explaining the tool's purpose and context, but it does not provide additional parameter-specific information since none is needed. The description is adequate for a parameterless tool.

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 creates a new empty part in SolidWorks (.SLDPRT), uses a specific verb ('Crear', 'Create'), and distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'new_assembly' by specifying 'part'. It also notes that geometry tools require an active part, implying this is a prerequisite.

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 says 'Úsalo cuando no haya pieza abierta o quieras empezar desde cero' (Use when no part is open or you want a fresh start), providing clear context for usage. It also mentions that geometry tools require an active part, guiding the agent to use this tool first. The caveat about SolidWorks needing to be open and legacy fallback adds practical usage guidance.

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