plasticity_inspect_arbitrary_sections

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

Annotations already cover the read-only, non-destructive, closed-world safety profile. The description goes beyond them by disclosing two real behavioral constraints: all sections must share the same session/document/body/revision, and individual planes may be silently unsupported if they do not cut a supported section (partial-failure tolerance). Return format is not described, which keeps this short of a 5.

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?

Two dense sentences, front-loaded with the action and its bounds before the eligibility constraints. No filler, though terms like 'exact native section' are jargon-heavy and would benefit from one clarifying phrase.

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 3-required-parameter mutation-free inspection tool with no output schema, the description should do more: the plane-geometry structure is undocumented and no indication of what the inspection returns (per-plane support status, cross-section data) is given. The session/document/revision invariant is the strongest piece of context provided.

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 hints at all three parameters — plane count (1–32), 'one Solid' implying bodyId, and 'current... revision' implying revision — but it never explains the plane object structure (originMm, normal, xDirection) that the schema leaves undocumented. Partial compensation only.

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 (Inspect) and resource (1–32 explicitly supplied candidate planes through one Solid), with the batch bound spelled out. It distinguishes itself functionally from automatic-scan siblings by emphasizing caller-supplied planes, but never names the singular sibling (plasticity_inspect_arbitrary_section) or scan_arbitrary_sections, so the differentiation is implicit rather than explicit.

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 phrase 'explicitly supplied candidate planes' implies the caller must already know which planes to test, hinting at when to use this over a scanning tool, but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use statement and no alternative named. Guidance is inferable, not stated.

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