windchill_get_docs

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

With no annotations provided, the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only states 'get documents associated with a part' but does not mention if it is read-only, whether authentication is required, what types of documents are returned, or any error conditions. The agent cannot assess side effects or safety from this description.

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 extremely concise (one sentence, four words). It is front-loaded with the action and resource. While it is efficient, it lacks depth that could be included without much added length, such as specifying the output or typical usage context.

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 simplicity (one parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is minimally adequate but incomplete. It does not explain the return format, expected input formats, or what 'documents' encompass. Compared to sibling tools with more verbose descriptions, this lacks completeness.

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 100% description coverage for the single parameter 'number' (defined as 'Part number'). The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline is 3 for high coverage; the description does not enhance understanding of the parameter.

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 indicates the action ('get'), the resource ('documents'), and the context ('associated with a part'). It effectively distinguishes from sibling tools like 'windchill_get_part' (which gets the part itself) and 'windchill_get_bom' (which gets bill of materials). The verb 'get' implies retrieval, and the resource is specific.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any prerequisites or conditions. The description lacks explicit usage context, exclusions, or comparisons to sibling tools, leaving the agent to infer appropriateness from the tool name alone.

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