rigid_body_inertia_tensor_calc

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden and does well: it discloses the calculation method (surface integrals), the mesh validity constraint, exact outputs, and the price. It omits edge cases, density/unit assumptions, and failure behavior, but those are secondary for a deterministic calculation tool.

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 a single front-loaded sentence that states the purpose, input class, method, and outputs, with the pricing in parentheses. Every part earns its place and there is no filler.

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?

An agent still cannot reliably invoke this tool because the payload format/encoding is unspecified and there is no output schema. The description names outputs but does not state units, whether inertia is about the center of mass or origin, or any required density assumptions, leaving significant practical 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the payload parameter description is generic ('Input parameters or JSON string payload'). The tool description does not explain what payload should contain, such as mesh format or encoding, so it adds only minimal parameter-level value beyond implying a mesh is involved.

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 verb and resource: it calculates exact 3x3 inertia tensors, center of mass, and principal axes from closed watertight 3D meshes. This clearly differentiates it from siblings like calculate_bounding_box_3d or optimize_3d_mesh.

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 gives a clear input precondition ('closed watertight 3D meshes') and implies this is a physics-property computation tool, but it never explicitly says when to prefer it over alternatives or when not to use it. No exclusions or sibling routing are provided.

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