Add Section View

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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the description carries the burden. It explains that the view is added conditionally when auto=True, that the cut runs lengthwise through a feature, and the return structure. It does not contradict annotations; it enriches them with conditional behavior and output details.

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 logically structured: purpose and condition first, then parameter semantics, then return format. It is dense but without filler. The auto explanation is given in a dedicated paragraph, which is useful. It is slightly long but every sentence adds value, so it earns a 4.

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 role in a drawing workflow, the description covers the core decision (when to add), the key parameters, the return shape, and a related tool (drawing_gate) for pre-decision. It does not mention prerequisites like an existing drawing page, but those may be inferred from the page parameter. Overall it is sufficiently complete for an agent to invoke 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 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains the auto and process parameters meaningfully, including their effect on behavior. However, it does not describe 'page', 'name', or 'symbol', though these are mostly self-evident. This partial coverage leaves some parameters undocumented, so the description does not fully compensate for the schema's silence.

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 ('Add'), resource ('cross-section view'), and a triggering condition ('when the part has internal features... convey ambiguously — a counterbore, a blind hole/bore, or a pocket'). It is clear and actionable. It does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling 'section_view', but the conditional trigger helps distinguish it from a generic section tool.

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?

It tells when to use the tool (when internal features are ambiguous) and describes the auto parameter that only adds the section if hidden geometry exists, otherwise returns a recommendation flag. It also references drawing_gate as a pre-check for section_recommended, giving a decision path. It does not name alternative tools, so it's not fully explicit on when not to use it, but the context is strong.

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