List every document currently open in CATIA, showing type, file path, and unsaved changes status.
List every document currently open in CATIA, with its type, file path and whether it has unsaved changes.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, covering safety. The description adds value by specifying the output structure (type, path, unsaved changes) and the 'currently open' scope, which goes beyond the structured annotations. It does not mention performance or side effects, but these are not expected for a non-destructive list operation.
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 that states the action, scope, and output fields with zero wasted words. It is optimally concise and easy to parse.
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?
Given the simplicity of the tool and the absence of an output schema, the description adequately explains what will be returned (type, path, unsaved changes). There is nothing missing that an agent needs to know to invoke or interpret the result 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 the schema is fully covered (100%). The description correctly omits parameter details, and with no parameters, a baseline of 4 is appropriate per the rubric.
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 ('List') and resource ('every document currently open in CATIA'), and enumerates the exact fields returned (type, file path, unsaved changes). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like catia_document_info (which likely details a single document) and catia_list_windows (which lists windows, not documents).
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 implies when to use it: whenever an agent needs an inventory of open documents. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion criteria, but the context is clear enough for a simple read operation. It does not claim to filter or search, so there is no ambiguity about scope.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.