assess_load_bearing

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

No annotations provided, so the description bears full burden. It describes the analysis outputs but does not disclose whether the tool is read-only, modifies the file, has side effects, or requires specific file validity. A read-only analysis tool should state 'does not modify the file' for full transparency.

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 front-loaded with a clear summary and bulleted outputs, then a clarifying example. The example sentence is slightly verbose but adds value. Overall efficient for the detail provided.

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 no output schema, the description explains the return dictionary keys and the reasoning approach. It covers what the tool does and the main input requirement. Missing error conditions or limitations, but for a single-parameter tool, it is reasonably complete.

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 only parameter 'file_path' is described as 'Path to the STL file', adding format specificity beyond the schema's 'File Path'. However, it does not clarify if the path must be local or remote, or if file existence is checked. With 0% schema coverage, the description partially compensates.

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 clearly states the tool analyzes load-bearing characteristics from mesh geometry. It lists specific outputs (primary_load_axis, load_surfaces, etc.) and contrasts with simple material lookup, distinguishing it from sibling tools like analyze_mesh_geometry.

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?

The description implies use when geometric reasoning is needed (e.g., 'this bracket should be printed on its side'), but does not explicitly state when not to use or suggest alternative tools. The example helps contextualize, but lacks explicit exclusions.

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