step_analyze

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses that the tool works offline and performs no CAM, deployment, or robot control, which implies a non-interactive, read-only nature. However, it does not explicitly state whether the file is modified or what the analysis returns, leaving some gaps.

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 only two sentences, front-loaded with the core action and resource. Every part earns its place, and the exclusion caveat is concise and clear.

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 tool with a single path parameter and an output schema, the description is largely complete: it indicates the file type, local scope, offline operation, and what the tool does not do. It does not detail the output content, but the presence of an output schema reduces the need for that in the description.

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 has zero description coverage for the 'path' parameter, but the description adds that the file is a local STEP/STP file, which clarifies the parameter's meaning. It does not provide additional detail about path format, validation, or extension behavior, so the compensation is only partial.

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's function: analyzing a local STEP/STP file offline. The verb 'analyze' and resource 'STEP/STP file' are specific, and the sibling tools are all focused on Fanuc LS files, so this tool is easily distinguishable.

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 provides clear context that this is an offline analysis tool and explicitly states that CAM, deployment, and robot control are not performed. This gives an agent useful exclusion criteria for when to use it, though it does not explicitly name alternative tools.

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