Mesh Mass Properties

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint. The description adds useful behavioral details: units (meters, kg/m^3), integration method, and mesh closure requirement, going beyond what annotations provide.

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 sentences with no wasted words. First sentence states purpose, second adds critical units. Front-loaded and efficient.

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?

Explains what is computed and units, but does not specify return format (e.g., JSON object). For a computation tool with no output schema, this is a notable omission. Annotations cover safety but not output structure.

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 coverage is 33% with only content_base64 described. The description adds meaning for density unit but does not clarify filename pattern or required parameters beyond schema. Provides some value but incomplete.

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 the verb 'Compute' and the resource 'mass, center of mass, and inertia tensor of a closed STL/OBJ mesh'. It distinguishes from sibling tools that deal with rotations, URDF conversions, etc.

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 closed STL/OBJ meshes but does not explicitly state when to use vs alternatives or when not to use. No exclusions or context for selection.

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