plasticity_measure_parallel_planar_face_clearance

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

Beyond the readOnly/non-destructive annotations, the description discloses substantive behavior: it rejects rather than approximates nonparallel faces, curved non-circular edges, incomplete topology, and stale references, and it enumerates what is returned (overlap/boundary separation, normal plane gap, closest 3D points). This is rich operational context an agent cannot derive from the annotations.

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 dense paragraph that is front-loaded with the core action, followed by supported geometry, preconditions, and the sibling differentiation last. Long but nearly every clause carries information; minor redundancy in the geometry enumeration.

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 usefully covers return content, and it thoroughly documents preconditions and failure modes. The main gap is the undocumented nested face/revision parameters, which leaves the invocation contract partially unclear.

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 the parameters are nested objects (first/second with bodyId+faceId, plus revision), yet the description never explains them. 'Revision-bound' hints at the revision parameter's role but there is no guidance on the face-reference structure, so the description fails 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?

States a specific verb and resource (measure minimum distance between two parallel planar B-Rep faces) and explicitly distinguishes itself from body-to-body collision detection, which maps to sibling tools like plasticity_check_interference. An agent can tell what this computes without opening the schema.

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?

Gives clear preconditions and exclusions: faces must be parallel within 1e-7 degrees, have closed boundaries of straight/exact circular edges, max 512 edges, and nonparallel/incomplete/stale inputs are rejected. It also routes away from body-to-body collision detection, though it does not name the alternative sibling explicitly.

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