production.character_analyze_silhouette

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that it works in orthographic space and returns measurements without scoring, which is useful, but says nothing about cost, what object is analyzed, or how views are chosen when the parameter is omitted.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with the view list first and the measurement list second; the closing 'Measurements only, no score' earns its place as a scoping constraint. The metric enumeration is long but each item is a distinct output field, not filler.

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?

An output schema exists so return values need no explanation, and annotations cover the safety profile. The remaining gap is the undocumented 'rows' and 'manifest' parameters, which an agent could mis-set without any guidance in either the schema or the description.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It does helpfully constrain the sensible values of 'views' to FRONT, SIDE, THREE_QUARTER, BACK, which the schema leaves as an unconstrained string array. However, 'rows' and 'manifest' get no explanation at all, leaving half the parameters undefined anywhere.

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?

Names a specific verb+resource (silhouette measurement) and enumerates exactly which metrics are produced, so an agent can tell it apart from character_analyze_proportions or character_analyze_asymmetry by output content. It does not explicitly name a sibling or state a distinguishing scope, which keeps it below 5.

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?

Usage is only implied: 'Measurements only, no score' hints this is the raw-data tool rather than a judging/QA tool, and the fixed view list implies a character-silhouette workflow. There is no explicit when-to-use, no prerequisites, and no routing to alternatives such as character_analyze_proportions or character_compare_reference.

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