catia_mass_properties

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

Annotations already mark this as read-only and non-destructive. The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond the annotations: the mass source depends on whether a material is applied, and density is only used for the computed alternative. This helps the agent predict results without contradicting the annotations.

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, front-loaded with the key outputs, and each sentence earns its place. The material-vs-density nuance is explained efficiently without redundancy.

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 there is no output schema, the description clearly enumerates the returned quantities. It also handles the main edge case (material applied vs not) and points to density in kg/m3. It does not specify units for the reported measurements, but the listed quantities and conditioning logic are sufficient for an agent to invoke the tool 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 baseline is 3 even without extra parameter detail. The description reinforces the density/material condition already in the schema, and the element parameter is adequately documented by the schema with its default-to-document behavior. No new parameter meaning is added beyond what the schema provides.

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 names a specific action ('Report') and a precise set of resources: volume, surface area, mass, centre of gravity, and inertia matrix. This is clear and readily distinguishes the tool from generic measurement siblings like catia_measure, though it does not explicitly name a sibling or draw a contrast.

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 gives useful conditional guidance: when a material is applied, CATIA supplies the mass; otherwise pass a density. However, it never tells the agent when to choose this tool over alternatives such as catia_measure or catia_bill_of_materials, so usage context is implied rather than explicit.

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