compose_models

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

Discloses key behavioral traits: 'No boolean operations — bodies are simply combined', concatenates all triangle geometry, outputs STL, returns dict with merge statistics. No annotations exist, so description fully covers 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?

Description is succinct and well-structured: main purpose in first sentence, details follow, and 'See also' at end. No unnecessary words.

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?

For a tool with 2 simple params, no output schema, and no annotations, the description provides all essential info: input formats, output, return value, and relationship to similar tools.

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 0%, but description explains both parameters: 'file_paths: List of .stl/.obj/.glb file paths to merge' and 'output_path: Path for the combined output STL', adding meaningful context beyond schema type.

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 'Merge multiple mesh files into a single combined model' and differentiates from siblings (merge_mesh_files, merge_stl) via 'See also' section.

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?

Explicitly says 'Useful for multi-part assemblies or adding components to a design' and provides clear alternatives: merge_mesh_files for different parameter style, merge_stl for positional offset support.

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