get_mass_properties

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so safety and repeatability are covered. The description adds genuine context beyond that: the output unit convention (mm, degrees, kg) and the fact that results carry verification/error evidence. It still omits scope (whole document vs. individual body) and whether it requires a rebuilt model, so it remains a partial 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?

Three short, front-loaded sentences with the core action first, then units, then result characteristics. 'Through the independent native SOLIDWORKS engine' is partly promotional and 'Inspect verified measurements and error evidence' is vaguer than it needs to be, but nothing is bloated.

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 zero-parameter, no-output-schema read tool, the description should say what quantities come back (mass, volume, centroid, moments of inertia) and what document state it operates on. Units and verification evidence are covered, but the returned fields and scope of measurement are left to inference.

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?

There are zero parameters, so the baseline of 4 applies; the description's unit statement (mm, degrees, kg) usefully frames what the returned numbers mean, though it is output semantics rather than parameter semantics.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Get mass properties') and names the underlying engine and unit system, so the agent knows it returns physical mass-property data. It does not distinguish itself from near-neighbours such as get_bounding_box, measure_distance or pro_verify_volume, and never says which document or body the properties apply to.

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 only implied: 'Inspect verified measurements and error evidence' suggests using it to confirm a model's physical characteristics, but there is no explicit when-to-use, no prerequisites (e.g. an active part document) and no guidance versus alternatives like pro_verify_volume or get_bounding_box.

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