form_get_tsm

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

With no annotations at all, the description carries the full burden and does so well: it declares the operation side-effect free for the design, caps text output at 1 MiB, and enumerates the exact failure modes (oversized text, non-absolute or non-.tsm path, missing folder, existing file without overwrite=true). It even documents the response payloads. Only permission/auth context is absent.

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 verb, resource, and the two modes in one sentence, then the return shapes. The error enumeration is dense but each clause corresponds to an actionable failure. Slightly list-like, but nothing is filler.

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?

There is no output schema, yet the description spells out both return shapes ({"body","tsm","size_bytes"} and {"body","files":[...]}), and it covers limits, error recovery, and side effects. An agent has everything needed to call this correctly on the first attempt.

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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3, but the description adds real meaning: `path` switches from returning text to writing a .tsm file, and `overwrite=true` is required specifically when the target file already exists (the schema only says 'Replace an existing file' without framing it as an error condition). The 1 MiB limit applies to the text mode, which the schema never states.

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 and resource: read the TSM (T-spline mesh) description of a T-spline body, in either text or file mode. 'Changes nothing in the design' immediately separates it from mutating siblings such as form_move, form_crease, or form_convert_to_brep, so an agent can place it 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?

The description makes the two modes clear (default returns text; supplying `path` writes a .tsm file), which is meaningful usage context. But it never names when to choose this over the obvious counterpart form_create_from_tsm or form_inspect, and gives no explicit when-not-to-use guidance. Usage is implied rather than routed.

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