Calculate material quantities from a completed 3D building model by measuring geometry and deducting openings. Outputs totals for concrete, masonry, and each component type.
Boc khoi luong tu chinh mo hinh 3D da dung.
The tich do truc tiep tu hinh hoc nen da tru san cac lo cua da khoet. Ket qua gom tung loai cau kien va tong betong, tong khoi xay.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Without annotations the description carries the full burden, and it delivers real behavioral context: volume is measured directly from geometry and openings already-carved into stone are pre-subtracted, and results are grouped by component type plus total concrete and total masonry. It does not state read-only/non-mutating behavior explicitly, but the computation semantics are unusually well disclosed.
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?
Three short sentences, front-loaded with the action, then the computation caveat, then the return contents. 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?
With no annotations and no output schema, the description must carry the return-value burden, and it does: per-component-type results plus concrete and masonry totals. Minor gap is that it doesn't say whether the model must be free of errors or what happens on an empty model.
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?
Zero parameters, so there are no parameter semantics to document — baseline 4 applies. The description correctly focuses on behavior and output instead.
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+resource — extracting a bill of quantities (bóc khối lượng) from the already-built 3D model — which no sibling tool does (siblings are construction/creation tools like dung_tuong, khoet_cua). An agent can immediately tell this is the quantity-takeoff step.
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?
"từ chính mô hình 3D đã dựng" clearly signals the prerequisite: the model must already exist before calling this. It doesn't name alternatives, but none of the siblings perform a comparable function, so the context is clear.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.