overhang_report

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

Since no annotations were provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explains that the tool reads STL meshes (no CAD), measures overhang area, bridges, worst angle, height, and all six orientations, and importantly cautions that it measures faces, not spans. This is rich context beyond the schema.

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 longer than two sentences, but every clause adds value: the opening question, the measurement details, the orientation scoring, the unit clarification, and the faces-vs-spans caveat. It is front-loaded and coherent, though slightly verbose.

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 no annotations and the existence of an output schema, the description covers the tool's purpose, parameter meanings, output units, and a key behavioral limitation. It does not detail return structure (output schema covers that) nor error handling, but those are not essential for this analysis tool.

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%, but the description effectively defines limit_deg ('overhangs past limit_deg'), build_dir (with examples 'z+' and 'z-'), and implicitly stl_path via 'Reads the STL mesh'. This compensates well for the schema's lack of parameter descriptions.

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 opens with the direct question 'Will this part print without supports, and which way up is best?' clearly establishing the tool's purpose. It specifies a unique verb+resource ('reads the STL mesh' and measures overhang properties) and distinguishes it from sibling tools like the solid modeling or drawing tools.

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 implies usage for assessing printability without supports, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives, nor does it mention exclusions or when not to use it. There is no comparison to other report tools (e.g., contact_report, hole_report).

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