preview_compression_spring

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does convey a key trait: no KOMPAS document is created. However, it does not disclose whether the preview has other side effects, what it returns, or what inputs it expects.

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 sentence with no filler, and the key non-creation behavior is front-loaded. It is appropriately terse, though the vagueness of 'scenario' keeps it from being maximally effective.

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 no annotations, no output schema, and a completely unspecified params object, the description is not enough for an agent to invoke the tool correctly. The only useful context is the non-destructive preview intent; parameter structure and expected behavior are entirely missing.

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?

The schema has one generic 'params' object with additionalProperties true and 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It does not: the description says nothing about what parameters the compression spring scenario needs, such as dimensions, material, or load. An agent cannot construct a valid argument from this information.

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 ('Preview') and resource ('a compression spring scenario'), and explicitly states it does not create a KOMPAS document, which partially distinguishes it from create_compression_spring. However, 'scenario' is somewhat vague and it does not differentiate from other preview tools like preview_spring_from_size.

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 phrase 'without creating a KOMPAS document' implies this is for non-destructive previews rather than creation, giving some usage context. But no alternatives are named and there is no explicit guidance about when to choose this tool over related preview or creation tools.

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