slice_mesh

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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, closed-world, non-destructive behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real context beyond that: it names the native SOLIDWORKS engine, declares public geometry units (mm, degrees, kg), and says results include verified measurements plus error evidence. It stops short of describing output shape, failures, or how errors are surfaced.

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 sentences with the action front-loaded, which is good. However, 'through the independent native SOLIDWORKS engine' is marketing-flavored padding and the units sentence is generic boilerplate that does not tie to a specific parameter.

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?

There is no output schema, and the description hints at returned measurements and error evidence, which partially compensates. But for a four-parameter geometry operation with 0% schema coverage, the description leaves the agent unable to determine valid axis/frame values, so it is not sufficient on its own.

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% across four parameters, so the description must compensate and largely does not. It adds unit meaning for heights_mm, but says nothing about the accepted values for 'axis', what 'path' points to, or what 'frame' (default 'object') selects relative to world/object coordinates.

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 verb+resource ('Slice mesh') is stated, and the mention of an axis/height slicing operation is implied by the required params, but the description never says what a slice produces (cross-sections at given heights along an axis). It also gives no differentiation from mesh-adjacent siblings such as compare_with_mesh, pro_inspect_stl, or check_printability.

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 when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance at all. With dozens of geometry siblings present, an agent gets no signal about whether slicing is a diagnostic step, a preparation step, or something to run instead of pro_inspect_stl/compare_with_mesh.

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