contour

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it defines the coordinate frame (origin on the symmetry axis at the object base, x right, z up), the unit convention, the return shape (outer contour and holes as separate lists), and the side effect of save_to writing a .json. It does not disclose safety/permission requirements or failure modes, which keeps it short of a 5.

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?

Front-loaded with the deliverable before the coordinate frame and the per-parameter notes; each block (output description, coordinates, parameters) earns its place. The parameter block reads as a list of definitions rather than flowing prose, and 'method' is a dangling cross-reference, but there is little waste.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description must convey the return value — and it does, specifying scene coordinates, unit scaling, and that holes are returned as separate lists. Combined with full parameter documentation, this is sufficient for an agent to call the tool correctly, with only the vague 'method' option and unstated error behavior left open.

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% and 6 parameters exist, so the description must compensate — and it does, defining view syntax ('path', 'path|N', 'path|0', 'path|x1,y1,x2,y2'), detail's meaning and default, half, real_height, save_to, and method. The one weakness is 'method', which is defined only by cross-reference ('as in silhouette') rather than being self-contained.

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 deliverable — a silhouette contour as points plus a vertical symmetry axis, in scene coordinates, ready for Blender curves — and even names the output partitioning (outer contour vs holes). It does not explicitly contrast itself with the sibling 'silhouette' beyond deferring the 'method' option to it, so sibling differentiation is only partial.

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?

Usage is implied rather than stated: 'half' is flagged as the profile needed for a body of revolution (Screw), and 'save_to' is framed for reading contours back in Blender code. There is no explicit statement of when to choose this over 'silhouette', 'view', or 'parts', and no prerequisites or exclusions.

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