detect_mesh_pockets

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

No annotations provided, so description must cover behavioral traits. It describes a read-only analysis without side effects, but lacks details on error handling, performance, or what happens when no pockets are found.

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 concise and front-loaded with the main purpose. Follows with details on use and parameters. Could be slightly more compact but overall well-structured.

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's simplicity (2 params, no output schema), the description adequately covers purpose, usage context, parameters, and return type. Lacks edge cases or error scenarios but sufficient for effective selection and invocation.

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 has 0% description coverage, but the description adds meaningful explanations for both parameters: file_path as STL file path, min_depth_mm as minimum depth with default 0.3mm. This adds value beyond the schema's titles.

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?

Description clearly states it detects pockets and cavities in a mesh, specifying it analyzes base models for recessed regions on top and bottom faces. It distinguishes from siblings by noting it should be called before compose_models or multi_material_print.

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 instructs to call this before compose_models or multi_material_print to get pocket dimensions for overlay geometry. Provides clear context but does not mention alternatives or when not to use it.

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