catia_gsd_extract

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

Annotations provide no meaningful safety hints (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false). The description adds behavioral context by stating the result is 'independent' and that extraction is a clean reuse of topology – implying a non-destructive copy. It does not detail failure modes or what happens to the source, but the 'independent' phrasing covers the key trait.

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 the core operation and result front-loaded. The second sentence earns its place by framing the use case. No filler or redundancy.

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 4-parameter tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description covers what is produced (independent surface/curve) and why to use it. It omits an explicit note that the source geometry remains intact, though 'independent' implies this – a minor gap.

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% for all four parameters, so the schema already documents each parameter adequately. The description adds only loose alignment ('face, edge or connected elements' maps to `element`) without extra syntax or selection detail.

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 ('Extract') with a distinct resource ('face, edge or set of connected elements') and a clear result ('into an independent surface or curve'). It clearly differentiates from siblings like catia_remove_face (removes) and catia_list_faces (lists).

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 second sentence gives clear context for when to use this tool ('the clean way to reuse solid topology in surface work'), which signals a specific use case. However, it does not name alternative tools or explicitly state when not to use it.

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