helix

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden, and it discloses the return (a handle to a 1D helical curve), the units (mm, deg), and the important limitation that it is a curve rather than a solid. It omits any note on orientation/axis, error conditions, or permissions, so it is strong but not exhaustive.

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?

Front-loads the core action, then parameter semantics, then return value and a practical tip. Every sentence is useful and there is minimal waste, though the parameter and return sentences could be slightly more compact.

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?

With no output schema and no annotations, the description covers what is needed to call it correctly: units, the cone-angle interpretation, and that it returns a curve handle that must be swept for a solid. It is complete enough for correct invocation, with only minor gaps around orientation and error behavior.

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 documents radius, pitch, and height units (mm) and the meaning of angle (cone angle; 0 = cylindrical, >0 = conical), covering 4 of 5 parameters meaningfully; only 'name' is left unexplained, which is near-trivial.

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?

States a specific verb (Generate) and resource (Part::Helix curve), and explicitly differentiates its output from a related sibling action by noting that a 3D helical solid is obtained via a sweep using this curve as the spine. An agent can tell what this produces versus sweep/thread tools without opening the schema.

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?

Gives clear usage context: use this to get a 1D curve, and specifically use the curve as a sweep spine to obtain a 3D solid for threads. It routes the agent toward the follow-up operation, though it does not name an explicit alternative tool (e.g. add_thread) or state exclusions.

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