catia_measure_model

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so 'Read-only' largely repeats structured data. The description does add useful context: it operates on the ACTIVE part, covers all bodies, and computes mass at the part density, but it omits cost/performance caveats (the slow-bbox note lives only in the 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?

Dense, front-loaded enumeration of metrics followed by two short sentences. Every clause carries information; no filler 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?

With no output schema, the description properly enumerates the return values and their units (mm3, mm, kg.mm2), which is what an agent needs. Minor gap: no note on scope limits or performance for large parts.

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?

Only one optional parameter with full schema coverage and a good schema description (bbox 'slow on parts with many faces'). The tool description mentions the exact bounding box as an output but adds no parameter syntax beyond the schema, so baseline 3 applies.

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 scope (each body of the ACTIVE part) and enumerates the exact metrics returned with units. It is clearly distinguishable from single-metric siblings like catia_get_inertia and catia_get_bounding_box, though it never names them explicitly.

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?

Provides one concrete use case ('compare an original with its replay') but no when-not guidance and no explicit routing to the single-metric alternatives. Usage is implied rather than fully specified.

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