plasticity_inspect_rectangular_member

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that it reads native B-rep topology rather than display/mesh data, which is useful context, but says nothing about failure behavior on non-rectangular solids or the numeric tolerance used in verification.

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 single front-loaded sentence with no filler. It is efficient, though it compresses several distinct ideas (topology read, verification, non-mesh data source) without unpacking them.

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 four-parameter, fully required tool with no output schema and zero parameter documentation, the description is too thin. An agent cannot tell what 'verify' returns, what units or frames the axis vectors use, or what to expect when the solid is not constant-rectangular.

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% and none of the four required parameters (bodyId, revision, lengthAxis, heightAxis) are explained in the description. Critical semantics such as whether the axes are unit vectors in model space, their expected orientation, and what 'revision' refers to are left entirely undocumented.

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 specific verb+resource: reads exact native B-rep topology and verifies one constant rectangular solid. This distinguishes it from mesh/display-based inspection and from body_info/validate_bodies, though it does not name the nearest siblings (e.g., inspect_integral_rectangular_plate) explicitly.

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 'without using display or mesh bounds' hints at when to prefer this over display/mesh-derived measurements, which is implicit usage guidance. However, there is no explicit statement of when to use it versus sibling inspectors or what preconditions (single body, constant cross-section) must hold.

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