Fusion360 MCP Server

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the agent knows this is a safe, repeatable read operation. The description adds value by specifying the types of details returned (strategy, tool, parameters, toolpath status), which provides context beyond annotations. However, it doesn't disclose other behavioral traits like error conditions, rate limits, or authentication needs.

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, efficient sentence that front-loads the purpose ('Get details about a specific operation') and specifies the key details retrieved. There is no wasted wording, and it's appropriately sized for a simple read operation.

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 low complexity (a read operation with 2 parameters), rich annotations (covering safety and idempotency), but no output schema, the description is partially complete. It specifies what details are returned, which helps, but lacks parameter explanations and usage guidelines. For a tool with good annotations but no output schema, this is adequate but has clear gaps.

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 schema provides no parameter descriptions. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information—it doesn't explain what 'setup_name' or 'operation_name' represent, their formats, or examples. With 2 required parameters and no schema descriptions, the baseline is 3 as the description doesn't compensate for the coverage gap.

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 verb 'Get' and the resource 'details about a specific operation', specifying what information is retrieved (strategy, tool, parameters, toolpath status). It distinguishes from siblings like 'cam_list_operations' by focusing on details of a single operation rather than listing multiple, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with 'get_object_info' or 'get_parameters' which might overlap in domain.

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 doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing a valid setup and operation name), exclusions, or compare it to similar tools like 'cam_list_operations' for listing or 'get_object_info' for general object details. Usage is implied by the name but not explicitly stated.

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