import_cad_file

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

With no annotations provided, the description fully covers behavioral traits: the shape becomes both a named object and the current_shape, returns volume/topology/bounding box, STL imports produce a shell (volume=0) instead of a solid (affecting boolean operations), and a Z-fighting advisory for co-located shapes. This is rich and actionable.

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?

The description is appropriately detailed for a file import tool with two formats and STL-specific caveats. Every sentence adds value (format support, parameter explanation, return values, post-import guidance, limitation warnings). It is front-loaded with the core purpose, but slightly verbose in listing all post-import options.

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 the tool's complexity (two file formats, STL limitations, multiple post-import actions), the description is comprehensive. It covers inputs, behavior, return values, and edge cases (STL shell, Z-fighting). The presence of an output schema is noted, but the description already details the returns adequately.

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%, so the description must explain parameters. It clarifies `path` as absolute or relative, and `name` as optional with default to filename stem. This adds meaningful context beyond the schema's bare type definitions, though it could mention the required nature of `path` explicitly.

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 identifies the tool as importing STEP or STL files into the session as named objects, specifying file extensions and the resulting object status. It distinguishes from sibling tools like `render_view` or `measure`, which are post-import actions.

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?

The description provides clear post-import workflow hints (e.g., use `render_view` to visualize, `measure` for geometry queries, `shape_compare` for diffing). It warns about STL limitations for interference and boolean operations, and advises against rendering co-located shapes to avoid Z-fighting. However, it does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools like `load_part` for alternative file imports.

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