catia_gsd_list_elements

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the read-only nature is covered. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond that: it lists contents of the active part, includes nested sets, and returns reference tokens. No contradiction with annotations exists.

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?

One compact sentence delivers the resource, scope, content types, and output token information without wasted words. The most important scoping constraint, 'in the active part,' 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 simple read-only listing tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description covers the essential behavior: what is listed, where it is listed from, and what the output includes (reference tokens). It could be slightly more explicit about the exact return format, but nothing critical is missing for an agent to call it correctly.

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 single geoset parameter is already fully documented, including that empty means 'list them all.' The description adds no additional meaning about the parameter beyond the schema, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 a precise resource ('contents of the geometrical sets in the active part'), then enumerates what is included: points, curves, surfaces and nested sets, plus reference tokens. This clearly separates it from sibling list tools like catia_list_bodies or catia_list_components.

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 establishes clear context: it operates on geometrical sets in the active part, and the optional geoset parameter lets an agent limit the listing to one set. It does not explicitly contrast this with sibling tools such as catia_list_features or catia_describe_tree, so it stops short of a 5.

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