catia_sketch_slot

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

Annotations only indicate it is not read-only, not idempotent, and not destructive, which provides minimal safety context. The description adds that it 'adds' a profile, implying a write operation, but does not disclose prerequisites (e.g., active sketch), behavior when a sketch is not provided, or whether it modifies existing geometry. The burden is partially on the description, and it is only partially met.

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 sentence with zero redundancy. It front-loads the tool's purpose and clearly explains the shape definition in a compact manner. Every word contributes to understanding, making it highly efficient.

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 geometry-creation tool with six parameters and no output schema, the description explains the shape and parameter roles well, but it omits context about the 'sketch' parameter (whether it uses the active sketch or requires explicit specification). It also lacks guidance on prerequisites or constraints, leaving the agent to infer the operating context. This is a noticeable gap for a tool that interacts with an active sketch environment.

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%, with each parameter already documented (e.g., 'First arc centre H coordinate'). The description adds the phrase 'defined by the centres of the two end arcs and the slot radius', which restates the schema without adding new meaning. It provides minimal value beyond the schema, so 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 states a specific verb ('Add'), a specific resource ('closed slot (obround) profile'), and defines the geometry precisely. It clearly distinguishes this from sibling tools like line, circle, or rectangle by naming the unique shape and its defining parameters.

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 its use case by defining the shape, and the context is clear: if you need a slot profile, this is the tool. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or compare it to alternatives like rectangle or polygon, so it lacks exclusions but is still unambiguous.

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