catia_describe_tree

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is known. The description adds valuable context: the output format, the inclusion of reference tokens for later modelling, and a performance hint via the include_types parameter (cost per level). This goes beyond what annotations alone provide.

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 sentences with zero wasted words. The first sentence defines the operation and output; the second adds the reference-token detail and the usage guidance. Everything earns its place and the key information is front-loaded.

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 inspection tool with well-documented parameters and no output schema, the description covers the essential aspects: scope (active document), output type (nested JSON), element categories, and the reference-token mechanism. Minor omissions like behaviour on empty documents or performance characteristics are acceptable given the parameter hints.

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% – all three parameters (max_depth, max_children, include_types) have descriptive text. The description itself adds no new parameter semantics; it only alludes to the output structure and reference token, which are output-related. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema already documents parameters well.

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?

States a specific verb (walk), a resource (specification tree), and a precise output (nested JSON of bodies, geometrical sets, sketches, features, and component hierarchy). It distinguishes itself from the many specific list tools (catia_list_bodies, catia_list_features, etc.) by positioning itself as the starting point when the document's contents are unknown.

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?

Gives an explicit when-to-use instruction: 'Start here when you do not know what is in the document.' It implies that for known specific needs, more targeted tools should be used, though it does not name them explicitly. The guidance is clear enough for an agent to decide when to call it.

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