blender_measure_volume

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It clearly states the return value (volume in scene units cubed) and the additional manifold status report, which is useful. It does not mention side effects or prerequisites, but for a read-only measurement tool this is sufficient.

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 concise sentences with the primary action and resource front-loaded. It includes the return unit and manifold check without any fluff or redundant 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?

For a simple measurement tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description explains the return value and manifold status, which is adequate for an agent to invoke correctly. It could mention error handling or prerequisites (e.g., object must exist and be a mesh), but these are minor gaps.

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?

The schema covers 100% of the parameter with a description ('Name of the mesh object to measure'), and the tool description adds no extra meaning beyond that. The parameter is straightforward, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 clear verb ('Calculate') and a specific resource ('enclosed volume of a mesh object'), distinguishing it from surface area, clearance, and edge angle tools by the resource itself. However, it does not explicitly name sibling tools, so it stops short of a full 5.

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?

There is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like blender_measure_surface_area or blender_measure_clearance. The description implies it is for volume measurement but does not state conditions, exclusions, or which tool to use for other measurements.

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