rupa_cad_impor

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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true, and this description adds non-obvious behavioral context: external STEP files often contain invalid shapes that only surface during later operations, and import without measurement is uninformative. It does not explain the destructive side effects, but it does not contradict 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?

Two sentences with no waste: the first front-loads the action and formats, the second gives a practical rationale. Everything present earns its place.

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 core workflow is clear, but there is no output schema and the description does not state what the measurement actually returns, nor what destructive effects may occur. For an import/measure tool, this leaves some operational ambiguity, although the main purpose is well covered.

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 schema documents 'nama' and 'ruang', but 'berkas' lacks a semantic description. The description compensates by specifying the accepted file formats (STEP/IGES/STL) and their origin (another CAD), giving meaning to the otherwise bare 'berkas' 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 states the specific action ('Baca STEP/IGES/STL dari CAD lain') and an explicit second purpose ('lalu UKUR isinya'). This distinguishes it from related siblings by combining external CAD import with measurement, so an agent can infer when to use it instead of rupa_cad_ukur or rupa_cad_bentuk.

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 contextual guidance: it is for importing STEP/IGES/STL from another CAD system and warns that importing without measuring provides no useful information. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state exclusions, but the context is clear enough for selection.

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