plasticity_check_fastener_group_layout

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds genuine behavioral context beyond that: the metrics returned, the requirement that a 'recorded basis' be supplied for an explicit pass, and the explicit limitation that this is a layout check rather than strength or tool-motion 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?

Front-loaded with purpose and then returns in the second sentence, with the conditional-pass rule and scope disclaimer after. Four dense sentences, each adding information; no filler or restatement of the title.

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 no output schema and 7 parameters at 0% schema description coverage, the description compensates reasonably by describing the returned distances/clearances and pass conditions. But it leaves several required parameters (bodyId, frame, revision, cylindricalFaceIds) unexplained and gives no return shape, so an agent still faces real gaps.

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 carry the load, and it covers only part of it: opposedFaceId, the requirements/basis gating, and the envelope concept (head, washer, nut, driver). It says nothing about bodyId, revision, frame, boundaryFaceId semantics, or cylindricalFaceIds, leaving several required parameters unintroduced.

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 ('Measure and optionally check a fastener group on one exact rectangular planar face') and closes by scoping itself out of strength and tool-motion analysis, which distinguishes it from siblings like verify_fastener_group_load and calculate_fastener_member_strength. Clear enough to select without opening the schema, though it never names a direct alternative.

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?

The description gives conditional guidance for parameters ('Optionally provide opposedFaceId to verify...', 'A pass is returned only when explicit layout requirements with a recorded basis are supplied'), which tells the agent when a pass verdict is meaningful. However it never states when to prefer this tool over inspect_fastener_group or the verify_* siblings, so tool selection remains inferred.

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