analyze_shape

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds value beyond that by disclosing that deep_check invokes a slower OCC `Shape.check(True)` BOP test and that an empty doc_name resolves to ActiveDocument. It stops short of describing cost magnitude or what 'validity' failures look like.

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 purpose is front-loaded in a single sentence, followed by a compact Args block that maps one-to-one onto the three parameters. No filler, no repetition of the tool name, and each line earns its place.

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?

With an output schema present, the description need not explain return values, and its job is to establish scope plus parameter meaning, which it does. For a read-only inspection tool it is nearly complete; the only omission is any hint about error behavior or when a shape is considered invalid.

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 carries the burden and largely meets it: it defines name as the object name in the document, explains exactly what deep_check toggles, and clarifies that an empty doc_name means ActiveDocument — a semantic the schema's bare default of "" does not convey. Only minor gaps remain (e.g., what happens if name doesn't resolve).

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 ('Inspect') and concrete resources: face/edge topology, bounding box, volume, and validity. An agent knows this returns geometric metrics rather than performing edits. However, it never clarifies how it relates to siblings like find_faces/find_edges or boolean_operation, leaving some overlap ambiguity.

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 explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use statement, and no alternative tool is named. The only usage-adjacent guidance is implicit in the deep_check note about OCC's 'slower' test, which hints at a cost/accuracy tradeoff but doesn't tell the agent when to reach for this tool versus a finder or a boolean check.

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