catia_pad

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

Annotations include readOnlyHint=false, indicating a mutation, but the description doesn't detail the operation's side effects (e.g., modifies the part's geometry, creates a feature). It adds some context by listing the supported limit modes and thin-wall capabilities, which goes beyond basic mutation, but doesn't disclose prerequisites like requiring an active sketch or potential errors. No contradiction with 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 a single, well-structured sentence that front-loads the core purpose and then enumerates the key options. It is concise with no filler, but could be more structured with bullet points for readability. Still, it earns a 4 for efficiency.

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?

With 9 parameters, no output schema, and no explicit error-handling info in the description, the definition is moderately complete. It covers the main functional modes but doesn't mention potential failure cases (e.g., invalid sketch) or what a successful call returns. The schema covers parameters well, but the absence of output schema and edge-case guidance leaves gaps.

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 each parameter has a description in the schema. The tool description adds value by explaining 'up-to-next/up-to-last' and 'thin-walled pads' at a high level, but doesn't elaborate on parameter interactions (e.g., how second_length relates to symmetric). Given the high schema coverage, the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 tool extrudes a closed sketch profile into solid material, using the specific verb 'Extrude' and resource 'sketch profile'. It effectively distinguishes from siblings like catia_sketch_spline by being about creating a solid feature. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with the sibling catia_pocket (which removes material), though the purpose is clear enough.

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 usage for creating solid extrusions from sketches but doesn't explicitly state when to choose this over alternatives like catia_pocket (which removes material) or catia_shaft (revolve). It provides no exclusions or explicit 'when not to use' guidance, leaving the agent to infer based on the verb and context.

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