catia_capture_formats

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

Annotations already establish readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the description need not restate safety. It adds that the tool probes rather than merely reading the documented enumeration, but caching behavior is only disclosed in the schema's reprobe parameter, not in the description itself. This is useful but modest extra context.

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 sentence that is front-loaded with the main action and resource. The final clause about probing rather than assuming the documented enumeration is valuable for differentiation and does not feel like 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 zero-required-parameter, read-only report tool with no output schema, the description tells the agent what is reported (image formats) and why it differs from documented lists. The caching/reprobe behavior is already captured in the schema, so nothing critical is missing. It could optionally state the output type explicitly, but it is easily inferred.

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 100% because the only parameter, reprobe, has a full description and default value. The tool description reinforces the probing concept and indirectly explains why reprobe exists, but it adds no syntax or value semantics beyond the schema. Baseline 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 ('Report') and resource ('image formats this CATIA installation can actually write'), and the 'determined by probing rather than by assuming the documented enumeration' clause distinguishes it from sibling listing/export tools. It could name an explicit sibling such as catia_list_export_formats, but the purpose is clear enough for an agent to understand what the tool does.

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 probing-vs-documentation contrast implies this tool is for obtaining ground-truth capabilities rather than trusting the documented enumeration. However, there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and the agent is left to infer when to prefer this over catia_capabilities or catia_list_export_formats.

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