catia_component_position

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

The description is consistent with the readOnlyHint annotation ('Read' matches read-only). It adds value by specifying the exact output contents (translation, Euler angles, matrix), but it does not disclose any additional behavioral traits such as required permissions, potential errors, or performance implications. With annotations already covering the read-only safety profile, a 3 is appropriate – it adds some context but not rich behavioral detail.

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, tightly worded sentence. The verb and resource are front-loaded, followed by the specific data types returned. There is no filler or redundant information – 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 read-only tool with one parameter, no output schema, and a clear description of the return data, the description is adequate. It tells the agent exactly what to expect (translation, Euler angles, matrix) and that it's a read operation. It lacks explicit return format details, but since there is no output schema, the description carries the burden – and it does so sufficiently for the tool's simplicity.

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 schema description covers the single parameter instance_name at 100% ('Instance name of the component.'), so the baseline is 3. The tool description does not add any additional meaning about the parameter beyond what the schema provides, such as format examples or constraints. No compensation needed, but no enhancement either.

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 ('Read'), a specific resource ('a component's placement in the assembly'), and enumerates the returned data (translation, Euler angles, raw CATIA matrix). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like catia_move_component, which writes, and catia_list_components, which lists components rather than their placement.

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 it (when you need placement data) but does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives. There is no mention of scenarios where other tools like catia_measure or catia_point_coordinates would be more appropriate. The usage context is clear but not explicit about exclusions.

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