cross_sections

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered by structured data. The description adds nothing beyond that: no indication of cost, required preconditions (design loaded? units?), or return format.

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?

It is a single short, front-loaded clause with no filler, which is structurally clean. But brevity here is under-specification rather than genuine conciseness — the sentence carries no actionable detail.

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?

No output schema, zero parameter documentation, and no usage context. For a numerical geometry tool whose result interpretation (units, slice count effect) matters, the definition leaves the agent unable to call it correctly or interpret what comes back.

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 description coverage is 0% for both parameters. The description alludes to an axis but gives no format, allowed values, or default, and says nothing about 'num_slices' — the slicing resolution that determines result fidelity. With two fully undocumented parameters, the description fails to compensate.

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 phrase 'Площади сечений вдоль оси' (cross-sectional areas along an axis) names the computed quantity and the axis dependency, so the resource is identifiable. However it is a bare noun phrase with no verb and no differentiation from siblings such as 'measure' or 'inspect_part', which plausibly also return geometric quantities.

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?

There is no guidance whatsoever on when to call this tool, what conditions must hold (e.g. a loaded model must exist), or which sibling to prefer for related measurements. The agent must guess entirely from the name.

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