Extract a STEP model

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

With readOnlyHint and destructiveHint annotations already present, the description adds useful behavioral context: models are stored compressed and are extracted to standalone files. It discloses the side effect of writing .step files and lists mode behaviors without contradicting the annotations.

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 three concise sentences with no wasted words. It front-loads the primary purpose, adds a relevant storage detail, and summarizes modes, making it easy to scan.

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 schema covers all parameters thoroughly, including the important inline base64 behavior for omitted output_path, and annotations cover the safety profile. The description provides a clear high-level overview of purpose and modes, so the agent has enough context to invoke the tool correctly.

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 100%, so the schema fully documents all seven parameters with rich details, including mode-dependent output_path semantics. The tool description itself mostly restates the mode enum, adding little semantic value beyond the schema.

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 ('extract'), resource ('embedded STEP 3D models from an Altium .PcbLib file'), and output format ('.step files'), making the tool's function unambiguous. It also distinguishes from sibling tools like extract_style by naming the exact content type (STEP 3D models).

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 explains the supported modes and the default, which provides some within-tool usage guidance. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus related siblings (e.g., read_pcblib, extract_style) or include exclusions, so usage context is more implied than explicit.

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