get_face_normal

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It implies a read-only operation and hints that the result is snapped/simplified to axis directions, but it never states the return format, whether a normal is returned as a vector or enum, or what happens for non-axis-aligned or curved faces.

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?

A single short sentence with no wasted words, front-loading the action. It is efficient, though the terseness contributes to the under-specification.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description should explain the returned value, but it does not. Combined with 0% parameter coverage and no annotations, an agent lacks enough information to call this tool confidently for anything beyond the most obvious case.

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 solid_id and face_id, so the description had room to compensate but does not. It only loosely implies face_id refers to an axis-aligned face; the meaning and accepted format of solid_id are entirely undocumented.

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 states a clear verb (Return) and resource (simplified face normal), but it does not differentiate itself from nearby siblings like get_face_list, get_topology, or get_entity_properties. The qualifiers 'simplified' and 'axis-aligned' hint at a specific behavior without defining it, leaving the agent to guess what 'simplified' means.

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 indication of when to call this tool versus alternatives such as get_face_list or get_topology, and no prerequisites (e.g., whether the face must be planar or axis-aligned) are given. The agent must infer usage entirely.

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