catia_reference_help

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description aligns by saying 'Explain' rather than describing any mutation. It adds contextual scope about when the tool applies, but it does not describe the returned output format or length, so it does not go beyond a minimal transparent profile.

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?

Two short, purposeful sentences. The verb and subject are front-loaded, and the second sentence gives a concrete usage directive without filler 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?

For a zero-parameter, read-only help tool, the description tells the agent exactly when to invoke it and what it will learn. There is no output schema, but 'Explain the reference-token grammar' sufficiently conveys that the output is that explanation.

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 has zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to add beyond the schema. The mention of selector grammar is contextual rather than parameter documentation; a baseline of 4 is appropriate for a parameterless tool.

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 uses a specific verb ('Explain') and a specific resource ('the reference-token grammar'), and explicitly scopes it to geometry-pointing tools with examples of element types. It clearly positions the tool as a read-only help utility rather than a geometry operation, distinguishing it from every sibling in the list.

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?

It gives an explicit directive: 'Read this before guessing at a selector,' and states the grammar is used by every tool that points at geometry. It does not list alternatives or when-not-to-use, but no equivalent help tool exists among siblings, so the usage context is clear.

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