import_cad_file

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

With no annotations, the description discloses that the shape becomes a named object and current_shape, and returns volume, topology, and bounding box. This covers key behavioral aspects but does not mention potential side effects like overwriting or requirements.

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 concise sentences covering key details: purpose, parameters, side effects, and suggested usage. No extraneous information.

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 modest complexity (2 params, output schema exists), the description covers purpose, parameters, side effects, and return value summary. It is complete for an AI agent to understand and invoke correctly.

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%, but the description adequately explains path (absolute or relative) and name (defaults to filename stem), adding meaning beyond the schema's field names and types.

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 imports STEP/STL files as named objects, specifies file extensions, and distinguishes its use for loading reference geometry for comparison, contrasting with sibling tools like shape_compare or measure.

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?

It explicitly states when to use: for loading reference geometry for comparison with show() objects using shape_compare() or measure(). It does not mention when not to use or contrast directly with similar tools like load_part, but provides clear context for its intended use.

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