plasticity_measure_fastener_grip_stack

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 still adds value beyond that: the 1-64 layer cap, the requirement that faces be parallel and native (not derived), alignment with the fastener axis, and the shape of the return (revision-bound gripItems). It does not explain tolerances or failure modes.

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 dense sentences; the core purpose is front-loaded and each sentence carries information (what it measures, what it returns, and a constraint). Slightly jargon-heavy but no filler.

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 responsibly states the return value (revision-bound gripItems) and its downstream consumer, plus the explicit-selection constraint. It leaves tolerance semantics and revision binding unexplained, but the essentials for a 4-param read-only measurement tool are present.

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%, so the description carries the load. It explains the 'layers' concept (explicit pairs of parallel planar faces) and the fastener-axis alignment that motivates 'axis', but says nothing about 'revision' or 'angularToleranceDeg'. Partial compensation only.

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), resource (exact thickness of clamped Solid layers), scope (1-64 layers), and method (explicit pairs of parallel native planar faces aligned with the fastener axis). This clearly distinguishes it from generic measurement siblings like plasticity_measure_parallel_planar_face_clearance and plasticity_measure_solid_properties.

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?

Implies the downstream workflow by stating gripItems 'can be passed directly to plasticity_check_fastener_stack', and gives a real precondition: washers or other layers must be modeled and selected explicitly. It does not, however, explicitly contrast with alternative measurement tools or state when a different approach should be chosen.

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