cross_section_view

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

The description explains that the tool slices the mesh and returns contour polygons and area, implying it is read-only. No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden, but it lacks details on computational cost, limitations, or error handling.

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 well-structured with a single-sentence summary, followed by a detailed explanation and parameter list. It is concise without being overly brief, though it could be slightly more terse.

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 the tool has 4 parameters, no schema descriptions, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is fairly complete. It explains all parameters and return values, though additional examples or error handling notes would improve completeness.

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 description adds significant meaning beyond the schema, explaining each parameter: file_path (path to STL file), plane (axis perpendicular to cut), offset_ratio (fractional position 0.0-1.0), and offset_mm (absolute position in mm, overriding offset_ratio). Schema description coverage was 0%, so this compensation is valuable.

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 computes a 2D cross-section of a mesh at a cutting plane, using specific verbs and resources. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like analyze_mesh_geometry or repair_mesh by focusing on cross-sectional analysis.

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 specifies the tool is useful for inspecting internal geometry such as wall thickness and hole placement. However, it does not provide explicit guidance on when not to use it or mention alternative tools for other analyses.

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