scale_stl

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

With no annotations provided, the description bears full responsibility for disclosing behavioral traits. It fails to indicate whether scaling modifies the file in place or creates a new copy, whether scaling is reversible, or what the return value is. The sparse description lacks essential transparency.

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 sentence, which is concise, but it is too brief for the complexity of the tool (4 parameters). It conveys the core action but could include more details without much length increase. Adequate but not superb.

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 absence of an output schema and annotations, the description should provide additional context about tool behavior, prerequisites, and effects. It does not cover scaling semantics, file handling, or expected output, leaving significant gaps.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage for its 4 parameters (stl_path, scale_x, scale_y, scale_z), so the schema already explains the parameters. The description adds no extra meaning beyond what is in the schema, earning a baseline score of 3.

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 'Scale an STL file by specified factors' clearly states the action (scale) and the resource (STL file), making the purpose straightforward. However, it does not distinguish this tool from similar siblings like rotate_stl or extend_stl_base.

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 provides no context on when to use scale_stl versus alternatives (e.g., rotate_stl, lay_flat), nor does it mention prerequisites or edge cases. There is no guidance on appropriate usage or exclusions.

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