analyze_geometry

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

The description does not disclose whether the tool modifies the model, what it returns, or any prerequisites. Since no annotations are provided, the description carries the full burden but fails to mention behavioral traits such as side effects or required model state.

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 short but the first sentence is redundant with the tool name. It conveys the core purpose but lacks specific details that would make it more useful. It could be more informative without being longer.

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 the tool performs analysis, the absence of output description (despite having an output schema) and lack of context about when analysis is valid or what prerequisites exist make it incomplete. The description does not compensate for these 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% with descriptions for each parameter. The tool description repeats the analysis types already in the schema, adding no new meaning. Without additional param details, baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 specifies the tool's function: performing geometry analysis like curvature, draft, and thickness. It clearly states the resource (geometry) and action (analyze), but does not explicitly differentiate it from sibling analysis tools like calculate_mass_properties, though the specific analysis types are listed.

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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Sibling tools include other analysis and modeling functions, but the description lacks any indication of when geometry analysis is appropriate or when to prefer this tool over others.

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