catia_thread

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the description is not the sole source. The word 'Add' makes clear it mutates the model, which is consistent with annotations. However, the description does not disclose any further behavioral traits such as whether a new feature is created in the active body, reversibility, or failure conditions, so it adds minimal value beyond the 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 two sentences with no filler, front-loading the core purpose ('Add a thread or tap to a cylindrical face') and then immediately clarifying the face roles. Every word earns its place, and the structure is 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?

The tool has 7 parameters and no output schema, but the schema covers all parameters with descriptions. The main gap is that the description does not clarify the distinction between 'thread' and 'tap' (e.g., external vs internal thread) or any prerequisites like requiring an active body. It is adequate for invoking with the schema, but leaves some situational ambiguity.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description goes beyond the schema for the two required face parameters by explaining their semantic relationship ('lateral face is the cylinder to thread; limit face is the flat face the thread starts from'), which is not fully captured in the schema's individual descriptions. This addition justifies one point above baseline.

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+resource: 'Add a thread or tap to a cylindrical face', which is unambiguous among sibling tools. It further clarifies the roles of the two required face parameters ('lateral face is the cylinder to thread', 'limit face is the flat face the thread starts from'), making the operation's intent clear without needing to inspect the schema.

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 by mentioning 'to a cylindrical face', but it provides no explicit when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no alternatives. It does not compare against catia_hole or other feature-creation tools, leaving the agent to infer the tool's niche from its name and description alone.

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