plasticity_scan_arbitrary_sections

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint=false, and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds meaningful behavioral detail beyond annotations: exact B-rep sampling, evenly spaced stations, caller-controlled direction/range, and explicit non-ranking of critical sections.

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 tight sentences with zero waste. The core purpose is front-loaded, followed by caller-control and exclusion details in the correct order.

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 6-required-parameter tool with a nested startPlane object and no output schema, the description is only partly complete. It covers the sampling concept and range behavior but omits parameter-level details for bodyId and revision, and it does not describe what the call returns.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must carry the parameter burden. It explains station count range (2–32), offset interval, plane normal, and caller-chosen direction/range, which maps to several parameters, but it never mentions bodyId or revision, leaving key required inputs 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?

The description states a specific verb (Sample), resource (2–32 exact B-rep sections), and method (evenly spaced stations along an explicit plane normal and offset interval). It distinguishes itself from strength-oriented siblings by explicitly stating it does not identify or rank mechanically critical sections.

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 gives clear context that the caller chooses scan direction and range, and it states a negative condition: this does not identify or rank mechanically critical sections. That helps an agent avoid misusing it for critical-section ranking, but it does not name the alternative tool to use instead.

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