catia_drawing_list_sheets

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds the concrete output content (paper size, scale, views), which is useful behavioral context beyond the annotations. It doesn't introduce any contradictions and provides a reasonable level of transparency for a simple read tool.

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, concise sentence with no unnecessary words. It front-loads the verb and resource, and immediately states what information is returned. 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?

Given zero parameters and no output schema, the description is nearly complete. It states the action, the scope, and the return content. The main omission is an explicit statement about requiring an open drawing document, though 'active drawing' strongly implies it. Error conditions or behavior when no drawing is active are not mentioned, but are minor for a simple read 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?

There are no parameters (schema coverage 100% trivially), so the baseline is 4. The description correctly avoids describing parameters, as none exist. It adds no extra parameter semantics, but none are needed.

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 uses a specific verb 'List' and resource 'sheets of the active drawing', and explicitly names the output fields (paper size, scale, views). This clearly differentiates it from other listing tools like catia_list_features or catia_drawing_add_sheet, making its purpose 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 clearly states the scope 'active drawing', which implies the prerequisite that a drawing must be open and active. While it doesn't explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, the context is clear enough for an agent to infer when to call it. A small addition about not being applicable to part documents could improve it.

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