catia_gsd_circle

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the description carries the burden of disclosing mutation behavior. The description only says 'Create' without elaborating on side effects, such as whether it adds an element to the tree, requires an active geometry set, or may fail if prerequisites are missing. It does not mention error conditions or what the operation modifies.

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, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose and then enumerates modes. It has no fluff and uses semicolons to compactly present the mode logic. However, it omits some context that could be added without length, but overall it is well-structured and concise.

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?

With 8 parameters, no required fields, and no output schema, the description leaves significant gaps. It does not explain how the tool behaves without required parameters for a given mode, what it returns (e.g., a reference token), or how it integrates with the broader GSD workflow. The schema covers parameter definitions, but the description fails to provide the contextual framing needed for safe and correct usage.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining the three modes and the parameters each requires (e.g., center_radius needs a center point, support plane, and radius). This goes beyond the schema's per-parameter descriptions and clarifies how the parameters interrelate across modes.

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 'Create a circle or arc' which clearly identifies the verb and resource. It does not explicitly distinguish from similar sibling tools like catia_sketch_circle or catia_sketch_arc, but the 'gsd' prefix and the listing of distinct modes provide enough differentiation. The purpose is clear but lacks explicit sibling differentiation.

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 lists three modes but gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., sketch-based circles, other GSD curves). It does not state when to select each mode or mention prerequisites like requiring an active part or document. There is no explicit 'use this when' or 'prefer that if' language.

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