get_model_dimensions

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful context beyond that — the accepted file formats (.stl, .obj, .3mf) and the metric units of the returned dimensions — though it says nothing about behavior on malformed or non-watertight files.

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 sentence that front-loads the action, lists the formats inline, and enumerates return values without any filler. Every clause earns its place.

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?

With an output schema present, the description needn't detail return structure, and rich annotations cover the safety profile; the format list and unit disclosure fill the main gaps. The only residual omission is path resolution semantics for the single required parameter.

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. It partially does by listing supported file extensions, which constrains the file_path argument, but it never clarifies whether the path is absolute, relative to a workspace, or must reference an existing file. Meaningful but incomplete compensation.

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 uses a specific verb+resource pair ('Load a 3D model') and enumerates exactly what it returns (size in mm, volume, watertightness, face count). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like scale_model or rotate_model, which modify rather than measure.

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: an agent can infer this is the measurement/inspection tool, but nothing states when to prefer it over scale_model or rotate_model, nor any prerequisites (e.g. model must already exist). No exclusions or alternatives are named.

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