measure_volume

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden and delivers almost nothing: 'Measure' weakly implies a non-destructive read, but units, precision, behavior on open/non-solid geometry, and failure modes are all undisclosed. For a measurement tool operating on a referenced entity, this is a substantial gap.

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 front-loaded sentence with no filler, which is structurally ideal. It is arguably under-specified rather than wasteful, but conciseness itself is not the problem.

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?

A measurement tool with no annotations, no output schema, 0% parameter coverage, and unspecified units leaves an agent unable to predict what it gets back or how to interpret 'axis'. The safety profile is benign, but the operational detail is missing.

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%, so the description must compensate and does not. It never names solid_id (only inferable from 'solid') and gives no meaning at all for the 'axis' array parameter, which is the least self-explanatory field an agent has to populate.

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?

States a specific verb ('Measure') and resource ('solid volume'), so the operation is unambiguous. However it does nothing to separate itself from siblings like compute_cut_fill_volume, compute_grid_surface_volume, measure_surface_area, or get_mass_properties, which an agent must disambiguate by name alone.

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 (e.g. the solid must be closed), and no mention of alternatives such as get_mass_properties, which also returns volumetric information. The agent is left to infer everything from the name.

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