find_mesh_using_ray

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the full burden. It adds useful behavioral details: direction is normalized by Fusion and component_name scopes the search. However, it does not disclose other behaviors like whether the ray is infinite, what happens if no intersection occurs, or if there are any side effects. The 'NEW May 2026' note adds negligible value. Overall, it provides some context but is not exhaustive.

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?

The description is concise: a heading line plus three short parameter explanations. It is front-loaded with the purpose and does not waste words. The 'NEW May 2026' tag is a minor addition but not intrusive. Each sentence earns its place.

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?

Given there is no output schema, the description partially explains the return value ('return MeshBody objects intersected'). It does not mention potential empty results or ordering, but the core functionality is clear. For a simple geometric query with 3 parameters, it is reasonably complete, though it could note that the ray is infinite or that multiple objects may be returned in any order.

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 fully compensates by explaining all three parameters: origin in mm with format, direction with normalization rule, and component_name as optional with default behavior. This adds significant meaning beyond the bare schema types and titles.

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 clearly states 'cast a ray and return MeshBody objects intersected', which is a specific verb (cast) and resource (ray) with an explicit return type (MeshBody objects). It distinguishes from siblings like ray_collision_with_mesh by its focus on returning meshes rather than collision points or measurements.

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?

The description does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like ray_collision_with_mesh. It implies usage by describing how parameters work ('optional component to scope the search; omit for whole root'), but there is no direct comparison or exclusion guidance. It only covers the mechanics, not the use cases.

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