Analyze geometry

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, yet the description still adds real value: it is fast because it performs no slicing, it computes overhangs across six orientations, and it returns advice rather than raw numbers. That is meaningful behavioral context an agent cannot get from the annotations alone.

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?

Two sentences, both front-loaded: the first enumerates what is computed, the second gives the usage directive and the format limitation. Every clause carries information; nothing is padded.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description compensates by listing the returned measurements and recommendations in detail. Combined with the format restriction and the performance note, an agent has everything needed to select and invoke it correctly.

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?

With a single required parameter at 100% schema coverage, the schema already documents `path` as an absolute STL/3MF path. The description reinforces the same format restriction (STL/3MF, not STEP/OBJ), adding modest corroboration rather than new 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?

States a specific verb (analyze) and resource (model geometry) and then enumerates the concrete outputs: dimensions, volume, bed fit, footprint, overhangs/bridges across 6 orientations, best orientation, and support/brim advice. The format scope (STL/3MF only) further distinguishes it from sibling tools like slice_model and inspect_3mf.

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?

"Use it first on any model" gives an explicit sequencing directive, and "STEP and OBJ files are not supported" sets a clear eligibility boundary. "No slicing" implicitly contrasts with slice_model, but no sibling is named directly, which keeps it just short of a 5.

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