sw_weldment_profiles

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered by structured data. The description adds nothing further — it doesn't say whether results are a static bundled library vs. user profiles, or what the default 'iso' scope yields.

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 phrase with zero filler. However, its brevity is under-specification rather than precision — there is room for one routing sentence without bloat.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description is the only place to communicate return shape — whether listing standards, profile type names, or sizes for a given profile — and it does none of that. For a two-mode lookup tool (browse standards vs. list sizes for a profile), that gap matters.

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 both parameters are already documented ('square tube' example, 'iso'/'ansi'/'DIN'). The description's mention of standards and profile types loosely mirrors the parameters but adds no syntax or behavioral detail beyond the 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?

Names a specific resource ('weldment profile library') and its facets (standards, profile types, sizes), but contains no verb — the agent must infer it lists/retrieves rather than creates or edits profiles. The resource is identifiable, yet the operation is only implied.

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 when-to-use guidance and no routing. Given siblings like sw_structural_member (which consumes weldment profiles) and sw_cut_list, the description never says this tool is the lookup step that precedes them, nor what to do without a profile name.

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