measure

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description only adds the units of the computed outputs (mm³, mm², g), which is minimal added context and says nothing about required inputs, defaults, or failure modes.

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 short, but this is under-specification rather than conciseness: a telegraphic noun list with no verb, no subject, and no front-loaded purpose statement.

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 3-parameter tool with zero schema coverage and no output schema, the description should carry the full burden of explaining inputs and returns. Instead it is a one-line fragment, and it is in Russian inside an otherwise English toolset, adding friction without adding information.

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?

All three parameters (material, object_name, density_g_cm3) have 0% schema description coverage, and the description mentions none of them. Notably density_g_cm3 is required to compute the 'mass g' it advertises, yet no link is drawn between input and output.

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 fragment lists the quantities the tool reports (volume mm³, bbox mm, area mm², mass g), which goes slightly beyond the bare name 'measure' and lets an agent infer it computes geometric properties of a part. However, there is no verb or resource and no differentiation from siblings like inspect_part, cross_sections, or analyze_printability.

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 when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives. An agent cannot tell from this line whether measure or inspect_part is the right call for a given request.

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