check_geometry

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the non-mutating, local-only nature is known. The description adds the diagnostic scope (missing/duplicate slices, mixed orientations, gantry tilt, multiple frames of reference), which is useful, but much of that overlaps with return-value content that the output schema likely covers, and no cost or failure behavior on unreadable/invalid paths is mentioned.

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?

Two sentences: the first front-loads the precondition ('before measuring or reconstructing'), the second lists exactly what is reported and flagged. No filler and no restatement of the tool name.

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?

A read-only single-parameter validation tool with an output schema, so purpose plus the enumeration of detected conditions is nearly sufficient. Minor gap: nothing about scale/cost on large directories or what happens when a path is unreadable, though the output schema and annotations cover most of the burden.

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?

There is a single parameter with 100% schema description coverage ('Local DICOM files or directories inside the allowed paths'), so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description adds nothing about accepted path forms, mixed file/directory lists, or constraints beyond the schema, which is the baseline for high coverage.

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 concrete verb and resource ('Check series geometry') and immediately enumerates what the check reports (orientation, spacing, extent) plus the specific defects flagged. It positions itself relative to measuring/reconstructing workflows rather than naming sibling tools, so differentiation is implied rather than explicit.

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?

'Check series geometry before measuring or reconstructing' gives a clear positional cue that this is a pre-flight validation step ahead of measure_distance/render_mpr. There is no explicit when-not-to or statement about which specific sibling supersedes it, but the context is unambiguous.

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