catia_gsd_project

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

With readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, the annotations signal a non-read-only operation but do not clarify its effect, and the description adds nothing beyond the bare operation. The description never states that the tool creates a new projected element, where it is placed (despite the 'geoset' parameter), or the consequence of the normal/direction switch. No contradiction exists with the annotations, but the behavioral burden that the annotations leave open is not shouldered by the description.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence with zero filler and no redundancy with the schema. It is efficiently structured, though the terseness is part of why the richer dimensions (guidelines, transparency) score low.

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?

This is a 6-parameter tool with a conditional mode (normal vs. direction), no output schema, and mostly-false annotations, so the description carries a heavy completeness burden. It fails to state that the operation produces a new projected feature, what the return value is, or how the geoset/name parameters affect output placement. An agent cannot reliably predict the side effects or result format from this definition alone.

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 schema already documents element, support, normal, direction, name, and geoset. The description does add marginal value by clarifying that 'element' may be a curve or point and 'support' is a surface or plane, but it mostly restates schema semantics and contributes nothing about the normal/direction interaction or geoset placement.

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 a specific verb ('project') and resource (a curve or point onto a surface or plane), which clearly distinguishes the core operation from GSD siblings like split, trim, or intersect. It is unambiguous about what geometry goes in and what the target is. However, it never names a sibling or explains why this tool rather than a related GSD construction tool, so it stops short of explicit 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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as catia_gsd_intersect, catia_gsd_extract, or catia_gsd_split, which can also operate on a curve and a surface. There are no prerequisites mentioned (e.g., that the element must be selectable, that a target geoset must exist for placement of the result). The agent is left to infer applicability entirely from the tool name and sibling list.

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