catia_list_constraints

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds that it returns type, value, and status, which is useful context. However, it does not mention prerequisites (e.g., an open assembly) or behavior when no constraints exist. With annotations present, the added value is moderate.

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, efficient sentence that front-loads the action and immediately specifies the resource and included attributes. No wasted words; every element adds meaning.

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 list tool with no parameters and no output schema, the description adequately conveys what is returned. It does not mention the context (e.g., current assembly) but that is reasonably implied by the tool name and sibling set. Slightly more detail about the response format would push it to 5, but it is sufficient for an agent to invoke 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?

The tool has zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to explain beyond the absence. The baseline for no parameters is 4, and the description correctly implies a fixed, global list operation without needing parameter details.

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 clearly states the action ('List'), the resource ('assembly constraints'), and the detail included ('type, value and current status'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like catia_assembly_constraint (create) and catia_delete_constraint (delete) by focusing on listing, and from catia_sketch_constraint by specifying 'assembly' constraints.

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 usage is implied: if you need to inspect assembly constraints, this is the tool. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternatives, such as catia_list_features for sketch constraints or catia_assembly_constraint for creation. No explicit when/when-not guidance is given.

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