check_solid

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the ray-casting approach, mesh.contains, units in mm, and a concrete known failure mode when a ray passes exactly through a mesh edge/vertex. It could go further by mentioning mesh validity or coordinate system assumptions, but it is substantially transparent.

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 primary purpose is front-loaded in one clear sentence. The second paragraph is longer but contains necessary caveats and usage context. It is economically written with no filler, though it could be slightly tightened.

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?

Given only two parameters, no annotations, and an existing output schema, the description covers the core behavior, units, algorithm, and an important failure mode. The main gaps are file_path semantics and mesh validity requirements; otherwise it is reasonably complete.

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 must compensate. It adds meaning for 'points' by specifying they are (x, y, z) coordinates in mm, but it does not clarify the file_path parameter at all, nor does it fully specify the expected nesting of point arrays or coordinate frame. This partial compensation is insufficient.

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 clearly states the tool's function: for each (x, y, z) point, report whether it is inside or outside the solid via mesh.contains / ray-casting. It also distinguishes itself from get_cross_section by explaining that sibling tool only traces the outer boundary, so this tool handles internal cavity checking.

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?

Explicit guidance is provided: use this tool before assuming a region is solid, e.g., before extruding or lofting to fill a volume. It also warns against relying on get_cross_section for internal cavities and advises cross-checking with points just off axis-aligned coordinates to avoid ray-edge miscalculations.

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