plasticity_measure

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

Annotations already establish it as a safe, non-destructive read (readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false), so the bar is lower. The description adds the useful detail that bounds are axis-aligned, native (non-tessellated) B-Rep geometry, and in millimeters, but says nothing about output format or whether an invalid body id errors.

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?

One sentence, front-loaded with the verb and the exact quantity measured, with zero filler. Nothing is padded or restated.

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 one undocumented parameter and no output schema, the description should ideally state what the measurement returns (dimensions, min/max corners) and how to supply a body reference. It is adequate for identifying the tool but thin for invoking it confidently.

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 coverage is 0% and the single parameter 'id' is completely undocumented in both schema and description. The phrase "a body's" weakly implies the id identifies a body, but there is no statement of accepted reference type or validity constraints.

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 names a specific verb (Measure) and a specific resource (a body's axis-aligned native B-Rep bounds), including the unit (millimeters). That distinguishes it from siblings like measure_solid_properties, measure_face_properties, and body_info, though it never explicitly names those alternatives.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this versus the many other measure_* tools, nor any prerequisite or context about what the returned value is good for. The agent must infer applicability purely from the resource name.

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