describe_model

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

With no annotations, the description does real work: it discloses that a 6-view render is written to parts/<part>/out/images/<file>_original.png (a side effect), and flags that unit analysis can reveal a wrongly-scaled file. It leaves ambiguous whether the before/after coplanar-merge tri count implies actual file mutation, and says nothing about cost/latency for what is clearly a heavyweight geometry analysis.

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 purpose sentence is front-loaded and information-dense with little true waste, but the parameter notes are packed into one run-on paragraph rather than separated, making it harder to scan for a specific parameter during invocation.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description must define the return shape — it does name the reported measurements but not their structure, and two parameters plus the cost profile are unaddressed. Adequate for a read-style inspection tool, but not fully self-sufficient.

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 carry all parameter meaning. It explains part, file (including workspace-path form 'refs/x.stl'), scale ('' / factor / source unit like 'inch'), and image well, but silently omits two of the six parameters — size and inline — leaving them fully undocumented.

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?

Opens with a specific verb+resource ("Inspect an original model before remixing it") and then enumerates exactly what is reported: format, units, size, volume, triangle counts, curvature, holes, repairs, license metadata, and a MODIFY/REDRAW recommendation. That is a much narrower job than siblings like measure, check, or diagnose_failure, so an agent can separate them, though no sibling is named explicitly.

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?

"before remixing it" gives clear situational context — this is the reconnaissance step prior to modification/redraw. No negative guidance or explicit routing to alternatives (e.g., when to use measure or check instead) is offered.

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