solidworks_api

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

The description explicitly warns: 'This is full API access: calls may modify documents, execute macros, or access local files.' This goes beyond the annotations by explaining concrete side effects and destructive potential, making the behavioral impact clear.

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 dense but every sentence earns its place: purpose, argument syntax, return behavior, action guidance, and a safety warning. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and avoids unnecessary filler.

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 generic full-API tool, the description covers the essential invocation mechanics, return shape, and safety caveats. It does not detail target handle acquisition or error behavior, but the presence of a separate output schema and sibling connection tools reduces the need for that detail.

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?

The input schema has 0% description coverage, and the description adds meaningful details about argument encoding such as '{$ref:handle}', '{$variant:'I4',byref:true,value:0}', typed arrays, and '{$missing:true}'. It also explains return behavior via 'Returns value and out_args' and clarifies the action enum, though 'target' and 'member' remain somewhat implicit.

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's purpose: 'Invoke any exposed COM member,' making it distinct from the higher-level SolidWorks sibling tools. It also clarifies the action options and warns that this is 'full API access,' so an agent knows it is a generic low-level entry point.

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 gives some guidance, such as 'Get managers with action=get' and 'Explicit action avoids confusing methods and properties,' but it never explicitly says when to prefer this tool over the many specific sibling tools. It does not name alternatives or state conditions like 'use this only when no higher-level tool fits.'

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