calc_section_property

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds a meaningful behavioral fact: it computes without creating a section, i.e., no model mutation. It does not describe return values or error cases, but for a read-only calculation this is acceptable.

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 compact and front-loaded: purpose first, side-effect avoidance second, then exact input formats. Every sentence contributes necessary information, and no filler is present.

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 read-only calculation tool with two parameters, the description provides enough to invoke it correctly: input formats are explicit, and the no-creation behavior is stated. The lack of any return-value description is a minor gap, and the unresolved relationship with 'calculate_section_property' prevents a perfect score.

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%, so the description carries the full burden for parameters. It provides concrete structures for both: loop_segments as [{'main': [[x,y],...], 'sub': ...}, ...] and sec_lines as [[x1,y1,x2,y2,width], ...]. This is genuinely useful beyond the schema, though it does not elaborate on details like the meaning of 'sub' loops or coordinate units.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'Compute section properties from raw geometry' and adds the key distinction 'without creating a section', separating it from creation tools. However, it does not differentiate from the nearly identical sibling 'calculate_section_property', which an agent could easily confuse with this tool.

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 context: compute properties directly from geometry when no section object should be created. It also explicitly constrains input selection with 'Provide EXACTLY ONE of'. However, it gives no when-not-to-use guidance or named alternatives, and the sibling 'calculate_section_property' is left unaddressed.

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