analyze_sweep_path

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden, and it delivers: it discloses the specific failure mode (swept rings interpenetrate on the inside of bends), the non-obvious fact that the result still reports watertight and manifold so ordinary mesh checks miss it, and the numeric threshold (1.5+) for a clean surface. It omits cost/performance characteristics, which keeps it from a 5.

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?

Front-loaded with the core purpose, then rationale, then Args and Returns. Every sentence contributes, though the middle explanatory paragraph is slightly verbose for a tool whose name is already descriptive.

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?

Even though an output schema exists, the description usefully explains the returned fields and their interpretation thresholds (min_clearance_ratio below 1.0 self-intersects, aim for 1.5+). Combined with full parameter semantics and the failure-mode context, an agent has everything needed to call and interpret it.

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 and does: it defines path_points as the ordered centreline in [x,y,z] form, radius as the outer profile radius to be swept, and resolution as samples between points that must match the sweep call. Meaning is added well beyond the schema's bare titles.

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 and resource ('check whether a path can carry a profile of a given radius, without building it') and immediately distinguishes itself from the sweep operation it precedes. An agent knows this is a validation tool, not a construction tool, without opening the schema.

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?

Gives explicit invocation timing ('Call this before sweeping, or to find where an existing path needs widening') and couples its resolution parameter to sweep_profile_along_path so the check matches the eventual sweep. It stops short of naming an alternative to use instead when the check fails, but the when-to-use context is clear.

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