get_part_definition

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, yet it only enumerates returned content. It does not state that this is a read-only lookup, whether the definition must already exist, whether an ID or name is required, or any error behavior.

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?

It is a single short fragment with no waste, but it is not front-loaded around an action and reads as an under-specified return-field list rather than a purposeful definition.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, yet the description still omits how to supply a valid 'definition', its relationship to sibling retrieval tools, and any prerequisites. Thin for even a simple one-parameter lookup.

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 single required 'definition' string parameter is completely unexplained. The phrase 'part definition' in the description loosely hints at the argument's meaning, but neither its format (ID vs name) nor source is clarified.

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 is a noun phrase listing what the part definition contains (installed footprint, attachment/sealing surfaces, settings), so an agent can infer the resource is a part definition, but there is no verb and no differentiation from siblings like get_hull_spec, get_part_orientation, or query_parts. Purpose is recognizable but vague in verb and scope.

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?

There is no indication of when to use this tool versus query_parts, search_parts, get_part_orientation, or get_hull_spec, and no prerequisites or context are given. Only an implicit 'retrieve part info' meaning is conveyed.

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