plasticity_analyze_design_reference

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

Adds rich context beyond annotations: bounded/action-free profile, no CAD creation or print dispatch, image format/size limits with macOS HEIC conversion, durable request that is not retried under the same ID after interruption. These are exactly the behavioral traits an agent cannot derive from readOnlyHint=false / openWorldHint=true.

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 tightly packed paragraph that is front-loaded with the action and image limits, then return shape, then scale constraint and guarantees. Dense but every sentence carries information; slight length is justified by the complexity.

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 no-output-schema tool the description usefully characterizes the return payload and the durability/no-CAD guarantees, but given the sprawling nested input schema and 0% parameter coverage, it leaves too much of the input contract unexplained to be fully complete.

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% across 7 deeply nested parameters, and the description only glosses imagePaths (formats/sizes) and prompt/text. It says nothing about the large 'context' object (method enum, geometry fields, material, assignments, assumptions) or how evidence/answers feed the workflow, so the schema does the heavy lifting unaided.

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: 'inspect the supplied photo/sketch views and text' and names the output artifacts (functional interfaces, candidate features, scale-confidence status, one question package). It clearly differs from the many CAD-creation siblings, but it never names the closest sibling (plasticity_design_reference_request) to route the agent between the two.

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?

It implies usage conditions (needs traceable mm scale evidence for dimensioned results; at most one next question package implying iteration). However, it never states when to prefer this over plasticity_design_reference_request or other analysis tools, leaving alternative-selection to inference.

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