sw_cut_list

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

The annotations already declare the safe read-only, non-destructive profile, so the description only needs to add context. It does add value by naming the returned fields, which matters because there is no output schema, but it is silent on what happens for non-weldment documents (empty result vs. error) and on whether it reads the active document by default.

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 front-loaded fragment with zero padding. It is efficient, though the terseness borders on under-specification rather than optimal density.

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 one optional param and no output schema, the description should carry more of the return-shape burden. It names the columns but not the grouping/nesting, units, or empty-state behavior, leaving real gaps for an agent interpreting results.

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?

There is a single optional parameter, and the schema covers it at 100% with a clear 'defaults to the active document' note. The description adds nothing beyond that, which is the expected baseline when the schema already does the work.

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 fragment identifies a specific resource, a weldment cut list, and enumerates the returned content (member groups, quantities, lengths, profiles). However, it has no verb and does not differentiate itself from nearby siblings such as sw_bill_of_materials or sw_weldment_profiles, so an agent must infer that this is the read/list counterpart.

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 guidance on when to call this, versus sw_bill_of_materials or sw_list_bodies, and no stated prerequisite, such as the document needing to be a weldment assembly. The agent receives no exclusions or alternative routing.

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