get_stl_info

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must bear the burden. It mentions the output types (bounding box, face count, dimensions) but does not confirm the tool is read-only or discuss side effects, file existence requirements, or error handling.

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 a single, clear sentence that efficiently communicates the tool's purpose and primary outputs. No unnecessary words.

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 input is simple, but there is no output schema, so the description should elaborate on the return format or data structure. It lists three elements but does not detail their structure or types. Somewhat complete for a simple info tool.

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?

The single parameter 'stl_path' is fully described in the input schema ('Path to the STL file to analyze'), so schema coverage is 100%. The description's mention of 'detailed information' adds context but does not augment parameter semantics.

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 clearly states the tool retrieves 'detailed information' about an STL file and lists specific properties (bounding box, face count, dimensions). It distinguishes well from sibling tools focused on editing, printing, or slicing STL files.

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 implies use when you need to inspect an STL file before editing or printing, but does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives. Given the context of siblings, usage is clear.

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