preview_timing_belt_pulley

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden, and 'no CAD write' is a clear disclosure of the operation's non-mutating behavior — the main safety-relevant trait for a preview tool. It does not disclose output format or prerequisites, but the core behavioral contract is explicit.

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?

One sentence with no wasted words; the core action and scope are front-loaded and the safety qualifier follows immediately. Every element earns its place.

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 a 10-property nested schema, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers only the operation and write-safety. The agent still lacks return-type information, unit conventions (e.g., face_width units), validation behavior, and guidance for CUSTOM geometry parameters, making the definition incomplete for reliable invocation.

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% and the description names no parameters, so it does not compensate for undocumented nested fields such as custom_shape, custom_groove_depth, or custom_pitch_line_offset. Property names, defaults, and constraints in the schema provide some meaning, but the custom-parameter interactions (e.g., when designation='CUSTOM') are left unexplained.

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 names a specific verb ('Preview'), a specific resource ('end-view synchronous-belt pulley tooth profile'), and a boundary ('no CAD write'). This makes it distinguishable from write/create tools and from sibling preview tools like preview_flat_belt_pulley or preview_v_belt_groove without needing to open 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 'Preview' and 'no CAD write' phrases imply the tool is for non-destructive inspection, but the description never explicitly states when to choose it over sibling preview tools or when not to use it. An agent can infer usage from the name and sibling set, but the guidance is not spelled out.

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