scad_cross_section

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

Beyond annotations (readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false), the description adds meaningful behavioral context: it compiles the code to STL first and warns about CGAL render time on heavy models. It also clarifies percent mapping onto actual model bounds. These details are not evident from annotations or schema.

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 concise and front-loaded: the first sentence states the core functionality, the second gives the primary use case, and the final part adds essential parameter context. Every sentence earns its place; there is no fluff or repetition.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (6 params, no output schema), the description covers the key aspects: purpose, when to use, performance expectations, and two critical parameter meanings. It lacks details on return format or other parameter defaults, but those are partially covered by the schema. Overall, it provides enough context for an agent to select and invoke the tool confidently.

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 two parameters (percent and slab_thickness) in practical terms: 'percent: 0-100 along the chosen axis (mapped onto the model's actual bounds).' and 'slab_thickness in model units.' However, it does not explain the remaining four parameters (axis, code, size, view), leaving gaps for an agent.

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 action: 'Slice the model with a thin slab and render the cut.' It clearly identifies the resource (model/cut) and the tool's unique purpose: 'The only reliable way to verify internal geometry (clearances, hollows, joints).' This distinguishes it from sibling tools like scad_render_views or blender_cross_section.

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 states when to use the tool: to verify internal geometry (clearances, hollows, joints), positioning it as the 'only reliable way.' It implies a context where other tools (e.g., simple rendering) would not suffice. It does not explicitly list alternatives or when not to use, so it falls short of a 5.

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