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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It mentions that the tool 'creates' (implying a write operation) and returns success/failure messages, but lacks critical details like permission requirements, whether the document becomes active/selected after creation, or how it interacts with existing documents. This leaves significant gaps for a mutation tool.

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 well-structured with clear sections (Args, Returns, Examples) and front-loads the core purpose. While efficient, the example could be more concise by omitting the explanatory sentence before the JSON block, which slightly reduces efficiency.

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?

For a single-parameter creation tool with an output schema (which handles return values), the description covers the basics adequately. However, given it's a mutation tool with no annotations, it should provide more behavioral context about side effects, error conditions, or interaction with the FreeCAD environment to be truly complete.

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 description explicitly documents the single parameter ('name: The name of the document to create') and provides an example, adding meaningful context beyond the schema's 0% coverage. However, it doesn't elaborate on constraints like naming conventions, length limits, or uniqueness requirements that would be helpful for proper usage.

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 clearly states the action ('Create a new document') and target resource ('in FreeCAD'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate this tool from sibling tools like 'create_object' or 'list_documents', which would require explicit comparison to earn a 5.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'create_object' or 'list_documents'. It mentions the tool's basic function but offers no context about prerequisites, appropriate scenarios, or exclusions that would help an agent choose correctly among siblings.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It clearly indicates this is a creation/mutation operation and specifies the return includes a success/failure message plus screenshot. However, it doesn't mention permission requirements, whether objects can be modified after creation, error handling specifics, or rate limits.

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?

While well-structured with clear sections, the description is excessively long due to 6 detailed examples. The core information could be conveyed more concisely with 1-2 representative examples. The examples section dominates the description, making it less front-loaded than ideal.

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?

For a 5-parameter creation tool with no annotations, the description provides comprehensive parameter explanations and return value information. The examples cover various object types and property structures. However, it doesn't address prerequisites like document existence or explain the screenshot format/limitations, leaving some contextual gaps.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description fully compensates by explaining all parameters in detail. It defines 'obj_type' with specific prefixes and examples, clarifies 'obj_properties' with extensive examples showing different property structures, and even documents the optional 'analysis_name' parameter that appears in examples despite not being in the initial Args list.

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 clearly states the tool creates new objects in FreeCAD, specifying the action ('create'), resource ('object'), and scope ('in FreeCAD'). It distinguishes from siblings like 'create_document' by focusing on objects rather than documents, and from 'edit_object' by creating rather than modifying.

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 provides clear context about when to use this tool (creating objects with specific type prefixes) and includes extensive examples showing different use cases. However, it doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it or compare it to alternatives like 'insert_part_from_library' for pre-made parts.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states the tool deletes an object and returns a success/failure message with a screenshot, but lacks critical details: whether deletion is permanent/reversible, permission requirements, side effects on the document, or error conditions. This is inadequate for a destructive 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 well-structured and front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by parameter and return explanations. Each sentence adds value: the first states the action, the next two clarify inputs, and the last describes outputs. It avoids redundancy and is appropriately sized for a two-parameter tool.

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 the tool's complexity (destructive operation), lack of annotations, and presence of an output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It covers purpose and parameters but misses behavioral context like safety warnings or dependencies. The output schema likely details the return structure, reducing need to explain returns in the description.

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%, so the description must compensate. It clearly explains both parameters: 'doc_name' as the document containing the object and 'obj_name' as the object to delete. This adds essential meaning beyond the schema's generic titles ('Doc Name', 'Obj Name'), though it doesn't detail format constraints (e.g., naming rules).

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 clearly states the action ('Delete') and resource ('an object in FreeCAD'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes from siblings like 'create_object' and 'edit_object' by specifying deletion rather than creation or modification. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with 'get_object' or 'get_objects' beyond the verb difference.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., object must exist), exclusions (e.g., cannot delete protected objects), or recommend other tools for related tasks. The agent must infer usage from the purpose alone.

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

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 mentions the tool edits objects and returns a success/failure message with a screenshot, but fails to disclose critical traits like required permissions, whether edits are destructive or reversible, error handling, or any rate limits. This is inadequate for a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage.

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 well-structured and front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by parameter and return sections. It avoids unnecessary fluff, but the usage guideline sentence could be more precise, and the parameter explanations are minimal, slightly reducing efficiency.

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 the tool's complexity (3 parameters, nested objects, no annotations) and the presence of an output schema (which covers return values), the description is partially complete. It explains the basic action and parameters but lacks behavioral context and detailed parameter semantics, making it adequate but with clear gaps for effective agent use.

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%, so the description must compensate. It lists the three parameters with brief explanations (e.g., 'doc_name: The name of the document to edit the object in'), adding basic semantics beyond the schema's titles. However, it doesn't detail the structure or constraints of 'obj_properties' (a nested object), leaving significant gaps in parameter understanding.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Edit an object in FreeCAD' with a specific verb ('edit') and resource ('object'), making it distinct from siblings like 'create_object' or 'delete_object'. However, it doesn't fully differentiate from 'get_object' or other object-related tools beyond the basic action.

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?

It provides some guidance by stating 'This tool is used when the `create_object` tool cannot handle the object creation', which implies usage in fallback scenarios. However, it lacks explicit when-not-to-use advice or alternatives beyond this single reference, leaving gaps in context for other siblings like 'delete_object' or 'get_object'.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses that execution returns success/failure, output, and a screenshot, which adds value beyond the input schema. However, it lacks critical behavioral details: it doesn't specify security implications (e.g., arbitrary code execution risks), side effects (e.g., modifying FreeCAD state), or error handling (e.g., exceptions). For a tool with no annotations and high-stakes behavior, this is a significant gap.

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 appropriately sized and front-loaded: the first sentence states the purpose clearly, followed by structured Args and Returns sections. Every sentence adds value (e.g., explaining the return components). It could be slightly more concise by integrating the Args/Returns into a single paragraph, but it's efficient overall.

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 the tool's complexity (executing arbitrary code) and the presence of an output schema (which covers return values), the description is moderately complete. It explains the purpose and return components, but lacks context on safety, dependencies, or integration with sibling tools (e.g., how code execution relates to document/object operations). With no annotations and high stakes, it should do more to guide safe usage.

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 description adds meaningful context for the single parameter: 'code: The Python code to execute.' With 0% schema description coverage and only one parameter, this compensates well by clarifying the parameter's role. It doesn't detail syntax or constraints (e.g., valid Python versions), but for a single parameter, this is adequate to earn a high score.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Execute arbitrary Python code in FreeCAD.' It specifies the verb ('execute') and resource ('Python code'), and distinguishes it from siblings like create_object or edit_object by focusing on code execution rather than object manipulation. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from potential code-related siblings (none listed), keeping it from a perfect 5.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an active document), exclusions, or compare it to other tools like edit_object for scripting. The agent must infer usage from the purpose alone, which is insufficient for informed selection.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions the tool returns 'The object and a screenshot of the object', which adds some behavioral context beyond basic retrieval. However, it doesn't disclose important traits like whether this is a read-only operation, permission requirements, error conditions, or how the screenshot is formatted/delivered. For a tool with no annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps.

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 reasonably concise with three distinct sections: purpose statement, usage hint, and parameter/return documentation. Each sentence adds value, though the second sentence could be more direct. The structure with 'Args:' and 'Returns:' headings is clear and front-loaded with the core purpose.

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 2 parameters with 0% schema coverage and an output schema exists (though not shown), the description provides basic parameter semantics and mentions the return includes both the object and a screenshot. However, for a tool with no annotations and sibling tools that suggest a document/object manipulation context, it should better explain behavioral aspects like whether this is safe/read-only, how it differs from 'get_objects', and what 'object' means in this domain.

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%, so the schema provides no parameter documentation. The description adds basic semantics: 'doc_name: The name of the document to get the object from' and 'obj_name: The name of the object to get'. This clarifies what each parameter represents, but doesn't provide format expectations, constraints, or examples. With 2 parameters and no schema descriptions, this is minimally adequate.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Get an object from a document' and 'get the properties of an object'. It specifies the verb ('get') and resource ('object from a document'), but doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_objects' or 'get_view', which appear to be related retrieval operations.

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 provides implied usage guidance: 'to get the properties of an object to see what you can check or edit' suggests this is for inspection before potential modifications. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this versus alternatives like 'get_objects' (plural) or 'get_view', nor does it mention prerequisites or exclusions.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions that the tool returns 'a list of objects in the document and a screenshot of the document,' which adds some behavioral context beyond basic functionality. However, it lacks details on permissions, rate limits, error conditions, or whether the operation is read-only (implied but not stated). For a tool with no annotations, this is insufficient.

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 well-structured with clear sections for purpose, arguments, and returns. It uses three sentences efficiently, with no redundant information. However, the second sentence ('You can use this tool...') is somewhat repetitive of the first and could be more concise.

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 the tool's simplicity (one parameter, no annotations, but with an output schema), the description is reasonably complete. It explains the purpose, parameter, and return values. The output schema likely details the structure of the returned list and screenshot, so the description doesn't need to elaborate further. However, it could benefit from more behavioral context, such as read-only nature or error handling.

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 description includes an 'Args' section that documents the single parameter 'doc_name' as 'The name of the document to get the objects from.' Since schema description coverage is 0%, this adds meaningful semantics beyond the schema, which only provides a title. However, it doesn't elaborate on format constraints (e.g., case sensitivity, allowed characters) or examples, leaving some gaps.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Get all objects in a document.' It specifies the verb ('Get') and resource ('objects in a document'), making it easy to understand what the tool does. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from its sibling 'get_object' (singular), which retrieves a specific object rather than all objects.

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 provides minimal guidance: 'You can use this tool to get the objects in a document to see what you can check or edit.' This implies usage for inspection purposes but doesn't specify when to use this versus alternatives like 'get_object' (for a single object) or 'get_parts_list' (which might list parts). No explicit when-not-to-use or prerequisite information is given.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but only states what the tool does without behavioral details. It doesn't disclose if this is a read-only operation, requires authentication, has rate limits, or what the output format entails (though an output schema exists).

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, efficient sentence with no wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core purpose, making it easy to parse quickly.

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 the tool has 0 parameters, 100% schema coverage, and an output schema, the description is minimally adequate. However, as a retrieval tool with no annotations, it could benefit from more context on behavior (e.g., read-only nature, output structure) to be fully complete.

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 tool has 0 parameters, and schema description coverage is 100%, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description doesn't add parameter details, but this is appropriate given the lack of inputs, warranting a baseline score above minimum.

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 clearly states the action ('Get') and resource ('list of parts in the parts library addon'), making the purpose understandable. It doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_objects' or 'get_object', but the specificity of 'parts library addon' provides some distinction.

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 'get_objects' or 'insert_part_from_library'. The description implies it's for retrieving parts from a specific library, but lacks explicit usage context or exclusions.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It describes what the tool does but lacks critical behavioral details: whether this is a read-only operation, if it requires specific permissions, potential performance impacts of large screenshots, or error conditions (e.g., invalid view_name). The description doesn't mention if this captures the current state or triggers a refresh.

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 well-structured with clear sections (Args, Returns) and bullet points for enum values. It's appropriately sized for a 4-parameter tool, though the 'Returns' section could be more informative given the output schema exists. Every sentence adds value, with no redundant information.

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 the tool's moderate complexity (4 parameters, 1 required) and the presence of an output schema (which handles return values), the description is mostly complete. It covers all parameters thoroughly and states the basic purpose. The main gap is lack of behavioral context about permissions, side effects, or error handling, which would be valuable despite the output schema.

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 description provides excellent parameter semantics beyond the input schema. While schema_description_coverage is 0%, the description comprehensively explains each parameter: view_name with available enum values, width/height defaults to viewport dimensions, and focus_object behavior for fitting objects. This fully compensates for the schema's lack of descriptions.

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 clearly states the specific action ('Get a screenshot') and resource ('of the active view'), with the title reinforcing this purpose. It distinguishes itself from siblings like get_object or get_objects by focusing on view screenshots rather than object data retrieval.

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 implies usage when a screenshot of a specific view is needed, but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_object for object details or execute_code for custom rendering. No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions success/failure and a screenshot return, but lacks details on permissions, side effects, error handling, or rate limits. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is insufficient behavioral disclosure.

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 front-loaded with the main purpose, followed by structured Args and Returns sections. It's efficient with no wasted sentences, though the parameter explanation could be more detailed given the low schema coverage.

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?

With an output schema present, the description needn't detail return values, and it covers basic purpose and parameters. However, as a mutation tool with no annotations and incomplete parameter semantics, it lacks sufficient context for safe and effective use, leaving gaps in behavioral transparency.

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%, so the description must compensate. It only states 'The relative path of the part to insert' without explaining path format, examples, or constraints. This adds minimal value beyond the schema's title and type, failing to address the coverage gap adequately.

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 clearly states the action ('insert a part') and the source ('from the parts library addon'), which is specific and distinguishes it from siblings like create_object or get_parts_list. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from similar tools like create_object in terms of scope or resource type.

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 such as create_object or get_parts_list. The description mentions the parts library addon but doesn't specify prerequisites, exclusions, or contextual cues for selection among siblings.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool returns a list of document names, which is useful behavioral context. However, it does not cover other traits like error conditions, performance implications, or whether it requires specific permissions. The description adds some value but leaves gaps in behavioral understanding.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose in the first sentence, followed by a clear return statement. Both sentences earn their place by providing essential information without redundancy. It is appropriately sized and structured for a simple tool.

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 the tool's simplicity (0 parameters, no annotations, but with an output schema), the description is mostly complete. It explains what the tool does and what it returns, which aligns with the output schema. However, it lacks context on usage scenarios or limitations, leaving minor gaps in completeness for an agent's decision-making.

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 input schema has 0 parameters with 100% coverage, so the schema fully documents the lack of inputs. The description does not add parameter semantics beyond this, but since there are no parameters, a baseline of 4 is appropriate as no compensation is needed. The description's focus on output is reasonable in this context.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Get the list of open documents in FreeCAD.' It specifies the verb ('Get') and resource ('open documents'), but does not explicitly differentiate it from sibling tools like 'get_objects' or 'get_parts_list', which might also retrieve lists of items. This makes it clear but not fully sibling-aware.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites, context, or exclusions, such as whether it should be used instead of 'get_objects' for document-level operations. Without such information, the agent lacks direction on tool selection.

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