get_parametric_spec_template

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It clearly signals a read-only retrieval action ('Return an example spec') and clarifies that it does not consume a CAD file, but it does not explicitly state side-effects, safety, or that nothing is built or modified. For a simple getter this is adequate but not richly transparent.

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?

Two tight sentences with no filler. The primary action is front-loaded, and the second sentence adds the secondary output without repeating anything from the schema.

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 no-parameter retrieval tool, the description covers the key context: what is returned, the parametric/no-CAD distinction, and the supporting list of shapes and params. Since an output schema exists, the exact return structure is already captured externally, so nothing essential is missing.

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 tool has zero parameters, so there is no parameter meaning for the description to add beyond the schema. Per the baseline for zero-parameter tools, this is handled well since no parameter documentation is needed.

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?

Description states a specific verb ('Return') and resource ('an example spec'), and clarifies the distinguishing trait: the spec builds geometry parametrically with no CAD file. It also mentions the second deliverable (supported shapes and required params), making the tool's function unambiguous and distinguishable from the sibling get_spec_template.

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 when to use the tool: when the user needs a parametric spec example rather than a CAD-based one. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, so the agent is left to infer the boundary against sibling tools like get_spec_template.

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