plasticity_inspect_planar_section

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

Annotations already establish readOnly/destructive=false, so the bar is lower. The description adds genuinely new behavior: the read is bound to a 'current' revision and native B-rep boundaries, and it warns that display bounds and render meshes are not valid evidence — context an agent could not infer from annotations alone.

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 tight sentences with no filler, and the purpose statement is front-loaded before the caveat. Efficient, though the second sentence's value depends on context the reader may lack.

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?

A 4-required-parameter inspection tool with 0% schema coverage and no output schema needs the description to explain at least how to identify the face and section direction. The description covers the conceptual nature of the read but leaves all parameter semantics and the expected result unspecified.

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 four required parameters (bodyId, faceId, revision, xDirection). The description never explains what these identifiers are, how revision relates to 'current', or how xDirection defines the section plane, so it fails to compensate for the schema gap.

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 ('read one exact current planar Solid face') and pins the data source ('native B-rep line and circular boundaries'). It is narrower and more precise than the bare name, though it does not explicitly differentiate itself from close siblings like plasticity_measure_planar_faces or plasticity_inspect_surface_structure.

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 second sentence ('Display bounds and render meshes are not measurement evidence') implies the tool is for exact metrology rather than display-derived numbers, which is useful context. However it names no alternative tool and gives no explicit when-to-use/when-not conditions beyond that hint.

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