catia_pocket

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

Annotations provide no hints (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false), so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It mentions 'Cut material' which implies modification but does not explicitly warn about destructive side effects or state any requirements (e.g., the sketch must be closed, or that the operation modifies the active body). It also defers to catia_pad for limit options without explaining their behavior directly.

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 concise, two sentences, and front-loaded with the primary action ('Cut material'). It avoids unnecessary detail and directly states the key behavioral similarity to catia_pad. There is no fluff or repetition.

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 tool's complexity (7 parameters), no output schema, and neutral annotations, the description is incomplete. It does not mention prerequisites such as having a closed sketch, how depth interacts with limit modes, or potential failure conditions. It also does not explain the resulting feature or how it fits into the model tree. The reference to catia_pad helps but leaves many 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?

The input schema provides descriptions for all 7 parameters (100% coverage), so the description adds little beyond what the schema already states. The reference to 'same limit options as catia_pad' provides supplementary context that could help an agent reuse knowledge from a sibling tool, but it does not elaborate on parameter semantics itself. A score of 3 reflects the baseline for high schema coverage with minimal additional description value.

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 ('Cut material') and the mechanism ('by extruding a closed sketch profile into the solid'), which distinguishes it from additive operations like catia_pad. The explicit reference to 'same limit options as catia_pad' further clarifies its behavior and relationship to a sibling tool.

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 lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as catia_hole, catia_groove, or catia_remove_face. It only implies it is for cutting material, but does not mention prerequisites (e.g., an existing sketch) or conditions when other tools would be more appropriate.

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