check_geometry

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does well: it discloses the return shape (findings with severity 'fault', component, measurement, tolerance) and the bounding-box output, which is exactly the behavioral context an agent needs. It omits whether the check is read-only (implied), how long it takes, or whether it mutates session state, so not fully complete.

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?

Front-loaded with purpose, then return content, then the usage constraint in three compact sentences. Nothing is wasted and the agent can act on the first clause alone.

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?

No output schema exists, but the description still explains what comes back (findings plus per-component bounding boxes), satisfying the return-value burden. Combined with the explicit sequencing hint, the definition is nearly complete for a one-parameter validation tool; the only gap is the undocumented session_id.

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?

The schema has 0% description coverage and the description never mentions session_id. With only one required, self-evident parameter (session_id), the gap is small, but the description adds no meaning beyond the 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Check the aircraft's geometry ... against the file') and enumerates concrete fault classes (one-sided wing, wing not touching fuselage, impossible reference area) that no sibling tool covers. An agent can distinguish this validation tool from get_configuration_summary or list_geometric_components at a glance.

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?

'Run it after opening a file and before meshing' gives explicit sequencing relative to open_cpacs and export_component_mesh. It doesn't name an alternative tool or state when not to run it, so it stops short of full routing guidance.

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