FreeCAD MCP Server

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It clearly describes what the tool returns (detailed diagnostic information about constraints and geometry) and implies it's a read-only inspection tool (no mention of modifications). However, it doesn't mention potential limitations like performance impact on large sketches or whether it requires specific document states.

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 well-structured and front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by detailed return information, usage context, and parameter explanations. Every sentence adds value without redundancy, making efficient use of space while providing comprehensive information.

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 diagnostic tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description does an excellent job explaining what information will be returned. However, without an output schema, it could benefit from more detail about the exact structure of the 'detailed list' of constraints and geometry elements to help the agent interpret results.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description fully compensates by explaining both parameters: 'name: Sketch object name (e.g., "Sketch001")' and 'doc_name: Document name. Empty string uses the active document.' This provides essential semantic context that the schema lacks, including the example format and default behavior.

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 tool performs 'deep inspection of a sketch's constraint health' and specifies it returns constraint counts, geometry counts, degrees of freedom, constraint status, and detailed geometry information. It distinguishes itself from siblings by focusing specifically on sketch diagnostics rather than general analysis or object inspection.

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 explicitly states 'This is the primary diagnostic tool for sketch problems — over-constrained, under-constrained, or conflicting sketches,' providing clear guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It identifies the specific problem domain (sketch constraint issues) where this tool should be applied.

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