civil3d_query

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does substantial work: it discloses read-only semantics ('no changes saved'), available globals (Document, CivilDoc, Database, Transaction, Editor), auto-imported namespaces, the JSON return mechanism, and the expectedDrawing guard vs. bootstrap behavior. It does not cover error behavior for failed compilation or thrown exceptions at runtime, which is a notable gap for a code-execution tool, but the disclosed traits are rich.

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?

Three sentences, each earning its place: purpose/globals/return semantics, when-to-use, and the expectedDrawing rule. The first sentence is dense but not wasteful; the most critical differentiator (READ-ONLY) is front-loaded before supporting details.

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 complex code-execution tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the essentials: execution mode, environment globals, namespaces, return format, and the identity-guard parameter semantics. The main omissions are error/exception behavior and the exact failure mode when expectedDrawing mismatches, which an agent invoking arbitrary C# code would benefit from knowing.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds genuine value beyond the schema by explaining when to omit expectedDrawing entirely — 'Omit expectedDrawing only to bootstrap Database.Filename and Database.FingerprintGuid; otherwise supply it to guard the active drawing' — a semantic the schema's field descriptions do not convey.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Execute C# code in Civil 3D in READ-ONLY mode (no changes saved).' It further scopes the tool with 'Use this for querying data: listing objects, getting properties, analyzing surfaces, etc.', which clearly differentiates it from the sibling civil3d_execute. An agent can tell immediately what this tool does and how it differs.

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?

'Use this for querying data' is an explicit when-to-use statement with concrete examples. The READ-ONLY framing implies that mutations belong to the sibling civil3d_execute, though it never names that alternative or states a when-not-to-use condition explicitly, so it stops short of a full 5.

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