get_design_info

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It indicates read-only behavior but does not disclose the exact output format, whether it includes nested data, or if there are any constraints (e.g., requires active design). Minimal transparency beyond basic info retrieval.

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?

A single 14-word sentence that is concise, front-loaded, and immediately conveys the tool's purpose. Every word earns its place with no redundancy.

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 output schema, the description should provide sufficient detail about the return value. It lists three items (document name, components, bodies) but omits potential other elements like sketches or construction planes. Incomplete for a comprehensive 'get info' tool, but adequate for a minimal overview.

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?

No parameters, so baseline score of 4 applies. No parameter information is needed, and the description does not need to add meaning beyond the empty schema.

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 retrieves information about the current Fusion 360 design, specifying document name, components, and bodies. This distinguishes it from siblings like list_bodies or list_components, which focus on individual elements.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as list_bodies, list_components, or get_parameters. The description implies a general overview purpose but does not clarify exclusions or preferred contexts.

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