measure_geometry

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavior. It lists the return fields and notes that obj_name 'must have a Shape', which is a useful prerequisite. It also frames the tool as a verification step (implying read-only). However, it doesn't explicitly state non-destructiveness or error behavior, which would improve certainty.

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 efficiently structured with a purpose sentence, usage note, and clearly labeled Args/Returns sections. No redundant or vague wording.

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?

For a measurement tool with a detailed output specification, the description covers the core aspects: what it measures, when to use it, input requirements, and return format. It lacks explicit error handling or a read-only guarantee, but overall it is contextually complete given the tool's simplicity.

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 schema provides only parameter names with no descriptions. The description adds 'Document name' for doc_name and 'must have a Shape' for obj_name, giving meaningful context, especially the shape requirement. This compensates for the 0% schema coverage.

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 opens with 'Measure an object's Shape' followed by a specific list of measured quantities (volume, area, bounding box, center of mass, element counts, validity). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_topology (topology structure) or get_positioning_info (position).

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 after modeling steps to verify design targets quantitatively' provides clear context for when to call. It doesn't explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the purpose is specific enough to guide selection.

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