get_cadwork_api_help

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does well: it discloses that the tool reads Type-Stubs (.pyi) locally, requires no bridge call, and works even when Cadwork is not running. It also describes the varying output depending on provided arguments. It does not mention error behavior for invalid module/function names, but the read-only local nature is clearly conveyed.

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 compact but information-dense. It front-loads the core purpose, adds the environment constraint, then uses a clear, scannable code-block style for invocation patterns and separates the Args section. Every sentence or example contributes useful information without filler.

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 there is no output schema, the description explains the return content for each invocation mode: module list, function signatures with short descriptions, or full docstrings. It also covers the key environment behavior and both parameters. Missing only minor edge-case details such as what happens for unknown module names or whether 'function' can be used without 'module'.

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 0%, so the description is the only parameter documentation. It explains 'module' as an optional module name with a concrete example ('element_controller') and 'function' as an optional function name within the module. The call patterns clarify how the parameters combine, though the dependency that 'function' likely requires 'module' is only implied, not stated explicitly.

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 first line states a clear verb and resource: 'Listet verfügbare cwapi3d-Module bzw. -Funktionen.' The description also distinguishes the tool from bridge-dependent siblings by emphasizing that it reads local .pyi stubs and requires no running Cadwork instance, so an agent can identify its role precisely.

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 gives explicit invocation patterns for all three useful call shapes (no args, module-only, module+function), which is strong usage guidance. It also states when this tool is appropriate: when you need API information even without Cadwork/bridge access. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or exclusions, but among the siblings this tool has a distinct self-help introspection role.

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