solidworks_inspect

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds that it returns feature types and error/warning codes, which is useful context. However, it doesn't explain the 'bounded' nature in terms of the max_features parameter or any other behavioral nuances beyond the annotations.

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 a single, concise sentence with no filler. It front-loads the core action ('Inspect bounded feature tree') and immediately specifies the key details (feature types, error/warning codes). Every word earns its place.

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 has 2 parameters with no schema documentation and an output schema that is not explained, the description is insufficient. It doesn't clarify how to specify a document, what 'bounded' means in terms of limits, or what the output structure looks like. For a read-only inspection tool, it should at least mention the max_features parameter and its default behavior.

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% and the description provides no explanation of the 'document' or 'max_features' parameters. With zero coverage, the description must compensate, but it doesn't mention either parameter. The agent has to infer that 'bounded' relates to max_features, but there's no explicit documentation of what these parameters do or their acceptable values.

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 verb 'Inspect' and the resource 'bounded feature tree', and specifies what is included ('feature types and error/warning codes'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like solidworks_assembly_tree (which inspects assembly structure) and solidworks_feature (which likely modifies features). The purpose is unambiguous.

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 implies this is the tool for inspecting the feature tree, but it doesn't explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives or when not to use it. There's no mention of conditions like needing a document open or limitations. The guidance is minimal and implicit.

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