measure_surface_area

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 and does not meet it. It does not state that this is a non-destructive read, what units the result is in, whether it requires a pre-existing solid, or how the 'axis' input affects the measurement.

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?

One short sentence, front-loaded and free of waste, so it is structurally fine. Its brevity is achieved through under-specification rather than efficient communication.

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 output schema, no annotations, and zero parameter documentation, the description does not supply enough for an agent to invoke this tool confidently. At minimum it should clarify what solid_id refers to and what the axis argument does.

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 explains neither. The required solid_id is only hinted at by the word 'solid', and the optional 'axis' number array is completely unexplained, so the agent cannot know what values to supply.

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?

It states a verb (measure) and a resource (solid surface area), so the general intent is recoverable. But it does not distinguish itself from close siblings like measure_area, measure_polygon_area_stats, or measure_volume, leaving the agent to guess which measurement tool applies to a given entity.

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, when-not-to-use, or alternative routing information at all. With several near-identical measurement siblings in the list, the absence of any selection guidance is a real gap.

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