blender_cross_section

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safe nature is covered. The description adds valuable behavioral details: the mutual exclusivity error ('sending both raises ValueError'), the meaning of percent as a position along the axis, and that multiple objects are cut with the same plane and rendered together. No contradiction with annotations.

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 three short paragraphs with strong front-loading of purpose. Every sentence earns its place: purpose, parameter meanings, and a critical error condition. No filler or repetition; it is appropriately sized for the tool's complexity.

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?

The description covers purpose, parameter semantics, and typical use cases, which is strong. However, with no output schema, it does not explain what the tool returns (e.g., an image path or in-scene rendering), and axis options beyond the default are not described. For a rendering-focused tool with sibling render tools, this missing output clarity is a noticeable gap.

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. It explains percent (0-100, 50=middle) and object_names (multiple objects cut together) plus the mutual exclusivity rule. However, axis is left undocumented (only default 'z' appears in schema), and object_name singular is only implied through the exclusivity rule. Not all parameters receive equal semantic clarity.

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 opens with a specific verb+resource: 'Cut and render the exposed internal face.' It clearly distinguishes itself from sibling render tools by stating it verifies internal geometry 'that renders can't show' and lists concrete use cases (pin holes, wall thickness, knuckle interleave, clearance gaps). This goes beyond a vague purpose and sets clear scope.

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?

The description gives explicit context for when to use: 'Use to verify internal geometry that renders can't show' and details when object_names is essential (chain joints, ball-in-socket captivity). It also provides a critical usage constraint: provide exactly one of object_name OR object_names. However, it does not explicitly mention when NOT to use or name alternative sibling tools, so it stops short of full guidance.

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