awcad_reference

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden; it does disclose what content is returned (signatures + docstrings) but never states that the operation is read-only and side-effect free, nor how large the listing is when `function` is empty. Since it is a documentation lookup, the mutability risk is low, keeping this at adequate rather than poor.

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?

Two short sentences with no filler, and the core purpose statement precedes the parameter hint. Nothing is repeated from the schema.

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?

A low-complexity, single-optional-parameter lookup tool with an output schema, so return-value explanation is not needed. The description covers scope and filtering; the only gap is that it never explicitly frames itself as the prerequisite step before `freecad_run`.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate, and it largely does: it explains that passing `function` narrows to a single function and that an empty value lists everything. It does not say whether the value must match exactly or how function names are discovered, but the empty-string listing behavior makes it self-bootstrapping.

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?

Names a specific resource: signatures and docstrings of the `awcad` helpers available inside `freecad_run`. That clearly sets it apart from the execution siblings, though the verb is implicit (a noun phrase, 'Documentação dos helpers'), so the agent must infer that the tool returns documentation rather than acting on it.

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 `function` vs empty-string behavior is spelled out, but there is no explicit statement of when to reach for this tool versus `freecad_run` or `freecad_status`. The intended usage (consult before writing `awcad` code in `freecad_run`) is only implied by the phrase 'disponíveis dentro de freecad_run'.

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