preview_part_scenario

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It does disclose one meaningful behavior: no KOMPAS document is created, implying a non-mutating preview operation. However, it does not explain whether the preview returns data, requires an active session, or has any other side effects, leaving the behavioral picture incomplete.

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, front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every word contributes meaning, and the most important distinction, no document creation, is placed immediately after the verb.

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?

The tool has two required parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, yet the description only clarifies purpose. It omits what 'scenario' and 'params' mean, what the preview output looks like, and any operational context needed to invoke the tool 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?

The schema has 0% description coverage and the description mentions neither parameter. Both 'scenario' and 'params' are generic names, and 'params' is an open nested object, so an agent has no way to know what values are expected or how parameters should be structured.

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'), names the resource ('parametric part scenario'), and adds the key boundary 'without creating a KOMPAS document.' This clearly distinguishes the tool from siblings like create_part_from_scenario and other preview/create tool pairs.

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 side-effect-free preview work, and the sibling list contains create_part_from_scenario as the likely alternative. However, it never explicitly states when to choose this tool over that alternative, nor does it mention any preconditions or exclusions, so guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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