get_cross_section

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

With no annotations provided, the description fully covers behavior: it explains the output structure (outer/hole loops, 2D points in plane's u,v), the coordinate system convention, and the simplification process (Douglas-Peucker) including the effect of setting tolerance to 0. This is detailed behavioral disclosure beyond any structured data.

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 concise but packed with information. It leads with purpose, then elaborated on output and parameters. It is a single paragraph but well-organized, flowing from output format to coordinate system to simplification. Every sentence adds value, though it could be slightly more tightly written.

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 there is no output schema, the description explicitly describes the return format (polygon with outer/hole loops and point coordinates). It also covers the coordinate system convention relevant for downstream sketch tools, making the tool's output immediately usable. The description is complete for the tool's complexity.

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 0%, so the description must compensate, and it does remarkably well. It explains the meaning of simplify_tolerance_mm with units and behavior, clarifies that plane_origin and plane_normal define the slice plane, and explains the 2D coordinate system relative to the plane axes. This adds substantial value over the raw schema.

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 action ('Slice the mesh with a plane') and the result ('return the resulting 2D profile(s)'). It specifies the exact purpose of drawing a matching Fusion sketch on that plane, making it distinct from sibling tools like mesh_summary or list_planar_facets.

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 provides strong context for when to use this tool: it is needed to obtain profiles for sketching. It explains the coordinate system alignment with fusion_create_sketch and the meaning of the simplification tolerance, but it does not explicitly mention alternatives or conditions where this tool should not be used. Nevertheless, the usage guidance is clear enough for an agent.

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