sw_api_enum

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses genuinely useful behavior: a member name is auto-resolved to its enum, and swSelectType_e returns an enum->string table for SelectByID2 (swSelFACES -> "FACE"). It does not say what happens for an unknown or misspelled name, which is the main failure mode for a lookup tool.

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 short sentences, no filler: first the scope, then the alternate input form, then the practical coding note and the special-case output. Every sentence adds information and the primary purpose is front-loaded.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description must carry return semantics; it does so for the interesting case (swSelectType_e's enum->string mapping) but not for the generic case. For a single-param read lookup this is close to sufficient.

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 coverage is 0% and the schema documents nothing about 'name'. The description compensates well by explaining that the parameter accepts either an enum type or a bare member name, which is the key ambiguity an agent would face. 0-parameter baseline logic does not apply since a required param exists.

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?

States a specific resource (swconst enum members and values) and gives concrete examples (swEndConditions_e, swSelectType_e), plus a second mode: resolving a loose member name to its enum. That distinguishes it from generic siblings like sw_api_search and sw_api_doc, though the verb itself ('returns/retrieves') is left implicit.

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?

Usage is only implied through the two input modes (whole enum vs single member) and the note to reference names via win32com.client.constants rather than the number. There is no explicit statement of when to prefer this over sw_api_members or sw_api_search, so routing guidance is weak.

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