catia_capabilities

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond annotations: that the probe works by 'attempting the real calls' rather than relying on version numbers, and that results are installation-specific. This helps the agent understand why the tool behaves as it does.

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 two sentences with zero filler. The first sentence front-loads the action and scope, and the second sentence explains the licensing rationale that distinguishes this probe from a simple version check. 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?

For a tool with one optional parameter, a rich annotation set, and no output schema, the description is sufficiently complete: it states what the tool returns conceptually (a list of capabilities), why the probe is done this way, and how caching is handled via the `refresh` parameter. The only minor gap is not explicitly describing the return format, but that is not critical for a discovery tool.

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 100%: the only parameter `refresh` is fully documented in the schema with its type, default, and meaning. The description does not add additional parameter semantics, but the schema fully covers the parameter, so a baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 states a specific verb ('Probe') and a clear resource ('what this specific CATIA installation can do'), listing the capability domains covered. It is unmistakably distinct from the many sibling operation tools, which perform individual actions rather than enumerating available functionality.

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 clear context: this tool probes installation capabilities, and it explains that licensing rather than release numbers determines availability, implying the agent should call it to verify what is supported before attempting licensed features. It does not name explicit alternatives, but none exist among the siblings for this discovery purpose.

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