plasticity_inspect_integral_rectangular_plate

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

Annotations already establish readOnly/non-destructive/openWorld=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real behavioral value beyond that: it discloses what the inspection verifies (face outlines, opposite normals, coplanar alignment, wall thickness) and that display/mesh bounds are excluded, telling the agent the result derives from native B-rep geometry.

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 compact sentences with no filler; the measurement premise is front-loaded and the verification list follows. Efficient, though the second sentence crams four checked properties into one clause.

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 read-only inspection tool with no output schema, the description covers what is measured and how, which is reasonably complete on behavior. However, with zero parameter coverage and five required inputs, the definition leaves too much for the agent to infer about how to actually invoke it.

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 5 required parameters (bodyId, frontFaceId, backFaceId, revision, xDirection), so the description must carry the burden. It names none of them and gives no format hints for revision or the 3-vector xDirection, leaving the agent to infer the required inputs from the prose alone.

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 ('Measure') and resource ('one exact rectangular panel wall') with the geometric precondition (opposed native planar faces of the same Solid). This is clearly distinguishable from adjacent inspection tools like inspect_rectangular_member or inspect_planar_section, though it does not name a sibling explicitly to route away from.

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 implies usage by specifying the required configuration (two opposed planar faces of one Solid) but gives no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, nor any alternative to reach for. Usage is inferable from the geometric premise rather than stated.

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