import_geometry

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, but it only states the action. It does not mention side effects (e.g., creating a study object), return behavior, or unit handling, which are critical for an import operation.

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, tightly worded sentence with no filler or redundancy. However, it is arguably too terse for a tool with four parameters, though it remains front-loaded and 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?

Despite an output schema existing, the description lacks essential context such as unit auto-handling, format auto-detection behavior, and what happens post-import. For a 4-parameter tool with no annotations, this is incomplete.

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%. The description mentions BREP/STEP/IGES, which offers a vague hint about acceptable filepath values, but it does not explain the 'format' parameter, 'name', or 'ignore_units', leaving most parameters semantically empty.

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 uses a specific verb ('Import'), identifies the resource ('GEOM'), and specifies source formats ('BREP/STEP/IGES'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like import_mesh or create_* geometry tools.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like import_mesh or procedural creation tools. It doesn't mention prerequisites, context, or exclusions, leaving the agent without directional cues.

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