catia_connect

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

Annotations already declare idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the description adds value beyond them: it discloses that launch=true starts a new instance (with slowness and license cost) and that the tool returns release and family info. This is useful context that isn't in the annotations. No contradiction.

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 sentences with no fluff. The core purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, the usage nuance in the second, and the return value in the third. Every sentence 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?

No output schema exists, but the description mentions it returns release and family, which is enough for the agent to tailor later calls. It doesn't explicitly state the failure mode when no CATIA is open and launch=false, but that is strongly implied by the default-attach description. Given the tool's simple scope, this is nearly complete.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description enriches the launch parameter by explaining its real-world consequences (slow, license checkout), which is beyond the schema's simple 'Start CATIA if no running instance is found.' That added semantics justifies a 4.

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 clearly states the verb ('Attach') and the resource ('a running CATIA session'), and also positions it as the entry point with 'Call this first.' This distinguishes it from all sibling tools that operate on an already-connected session, so its purpose is unambiguous.

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?

It explicitly instructs 'Call this first' and explains the default behavior (attach to open CATIA) and how to override it with launch=true, including caveats ('slow, and it checks out a licence'). This gives the agent clear when-to-use and behavior-modifier guidance, and since it's the entry point, no alternative is needed.

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