measure_moment_of_inertia

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose one useful trait—that the result is 'simplified' and derived from a bounding box—but says nothing about permissions, units, reversibility, or expected output.

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 a single front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It is concise, though the term 'simplified' is vague and the overall brevity leaves critical details unstated.

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?

With no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema description coverage, the description is too sparse for the tool's context. It omits parameter meaning, output behavior, and the conditions under which the bounding-box approximation is valid.

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 two parameters, and the description does not mention either 'solid_id' or 'axis.' It gives no added meaning about what the solid identifier represents, how the axis vector is used, or what units apply.

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 specific verb and resource: 'Measure simplified moment of inertia.' It also adds 'from bbox,' which distinguishes it from a more exact mass-properties tool like get_mass_properties. It does not name or contrast with any sibling, so it falls short of a 5.

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 explicit when-to-use guidance, no conditions for choosing this tool over alternatives such as get_mass_properties, and no exclusions. The phrase 'from bbox' hints at a simplified approximation but does not tell an agent when that approximation is appropriate.

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