catia_rib

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false. The description adds context by stating the profile must be closed and that the profile and center curve must be separate, and that it adds material. This clarifies the mutating nature beyond annotations, though it does not disclose failure modes or context requirements like an active body.

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 sentences with no filler, front-loaded with the core action and effect. The prerequisite is stated clearly after the main description, making it easy to parse.

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 schema descriptions and annotations, the description covers the essential operation, prerequisites, and effect. It does not mention the need for an active body or part, or error handling, but these are common to many CATIA feature tools, and the description is sufficient for an agent to invoke it 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 parameters are documented. The description adds extra meaning by specifying the profile must be closed and that profile and center curve must be separate, which clarifies expectations beyond the schema descriptions. This is valuable for the profile and center_curve parameters.

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 verb (sweep), the resource (closed profile along a guide curve), and the effect (add material), naming it as CATIA's Rib feature. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like pad (linear extrusion) and gsd_sweep (surface sweep) by specifying a solid material addition.

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 when a swept solid is needed and provides a prerequisite (separate sketches/curves), but it does not explicitly contrast with alternative feature tools like pad, pocket, or shaft. An agent would need to infer the selection criteria from the description alone.

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