catia_list_export_formats

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds behavioral context beyond annotations by noting that format availability depends on the licences installed, which is a non-obvious runtime factor. This extra context justifies giving more credit than a baseline read-only tool.

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?

The description is two sentences with zero filler. The primary action and scope are front-loaded, and the license caveat is a meaningful addition at the end. Every word earns its place, making it highly efficient.

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 no-parameter, read-only listing tool, the description covers the essential aspects: what is listed, the document type mapping, and the licensing caveat. There is no output schema, but the verb 'list' implies a return of formats and document types. It lacks explicit return-format details, but that is a minor omission given the low complexity.

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 trivially complete. The description does not need to elaborate on parameters, and it does not introduce any parameter-related confusion. A baseline of 4 is appropriate given the no-parameter case.

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'), resource ('neutral formats'), and scope ('this server knows how to ask CATIA for'), and also mentions 'which document types each applies to' – making the purpose unambiguous. It distinguishes itself from siblings like catia_export by focusing on listing available formats, not performing exports.

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 this tool is used to discover available export formats and notes the license dependency, which helps decide whether a format will work. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., before catia_export) or provide exclusions. No sibling tool performs the same function, so the guidance is adequate but implicit.

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