blender_measure_edge_angle

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It does disclose optional filtering, threshold-based flagging, and degree units, but it never states whether the operation returns a list, mutates the mesh, highlights edges, or produces a report. For a non-annotated tool this is a partial but not complete disclosure.

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 two sentences with no filler. It front-loads the core purpose, then adds optional behavior and unit information. Every phrase contributes useful information.

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?

The tool has four parameters and no output schema, so the description should clarify what the agent receives after invoking the tool. It explains degree units and flagging, but not the return format, how flagged edges are represented, or behavior when no edges qualify. This is a notable gap given there is no output schema.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters. The description adds context about the measurement type and unit, but it does not add meaningful semantics beyond what the schema already provides for object_name, edge_indices, threshold_max, or threshold_min.

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 ('Measure'), a specific resource ('dihedral angles at mesh edges'), and clarifies the angle type as face-to-face. This cleanly distinguishes it from sibling measurement tools like blender_measure_surface_area and blender_measure_volume.

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 gives clear context for when the tool is appropriate: when dihedral angles at mesh edges are needed. It does not explicitly name alternatives or when-not-to-use conditions, but the resource scope is specific enough to route an agent correctly among the measure-related siblings.

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