blender_measure_surface_area

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It conveys a non-destructive measurement operation, reports units, and notes local/world-space support, but it does not describe behavior for invalid objects, non-mesh objects, or missing material slots. Adequate but with gaps.

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?

Three concise sentences with no filler. The main purpose is front-loaded, followed by output units and supported modes. Every 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?

For a simple measurement tool, the description covers the core behavior, units, and optional modes. Since there is no output schema, a bit more detail about the exact return structure, especially the per-material breakdown shape, would improve completeness, but the current description is largely sufficient.

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 parameters are already well documented. The description's 'optional per-material breakdown' and 'local or world-space calculation' align with per_material and world_space but do not add meaningful new parameter-level detail beyond the schema.

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 and resource: 'Calculate total surface area of a mesh object.' It clearly distinguishes this tool from volume, clearance, and edge-angle measurement siblings, and adds useful scoping details like units and coordinate space.

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 makes clear this is the tool for surface-area measurement, and mentions the optional modes and units. It does not explicitly name alternatives or provide exclusionary guidance, but for a straightforward measurement tool the intended use is well implied.

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