plasticity_inspect_tongue_root_section

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine behavior beyond that: the precise geometric validity condition and the fact that a plane binding is returned for reuse. It omits what happens when the condition fails (error vs. empty result), so it is useful but not complete.

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 tightly written sentences with the geometric precondition front-loaded and zero filler. Efficient, though the second sentence about the plane binding could be folded more economically.

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, the description must carry return semantics; it hints at returned width/thickness and a plane binding but does not specify the output shape or units. For a read-only inspect tool with a nested plane input, this is adequate but leaves gaps an agent would need to call and interpret correctly.

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 there are three parameters, including a nested plane object with originMm, normal, and xDirection that are entirely undocumented. The description alludes to a 'section' and 'plane binding' but provides no meaning, format, or constraints for any parameter, failing to compensate for the coverage 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?

The description gives a specific verb (inspect, derive) and resource (tongue root section), and states the exact analytic output (root width/thickness). It also names the downstream sibling plasticity_verify_tongue_root_strength, aiding differentiation, though it does not distinguish itself from the other inspect_* section siblings.

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?

It states a precondition for the derivation ('only when the B-rep boundary is one axis-aligned rectangle with four straight edges and no holes') and notes downstream use, which implies context. However, it never says when to choose this tool over alternatives like inspect_planar_section or inspect_arbitrary_section, nor what to do otherwise.

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