estimate_mesh_weight

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It explains the computational method (divergence theorem, density, infill fraction, shell thickness) and states the return type (dict with volume, weight, bounding box). It does not mention error handling or prerequisites like valid STL files, but the provided details add significant 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 structured as a docstring with a purpose sentence followed by parameter explanations. It is front-loaded and to the point, though the first line is slightly redundant with the parameter descriptions. No unnecessary sentences.

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 output schema, and no annotations, the description covers the core calculation method, parameters, and return values. It lacks details on material name list or precise output structure (e.g., bounding box format), but is largely complete for usage.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It defines each parameter with examples (material: pla, abs, etc.), ranges (infill_percent: 0-100), and defaults (20, 1.2). This adds meaning beyond the schema, though it could further explain parameter impacts on the calculation.

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 explicitly states 'Estimate the printed weight of an STL file' with a specific verb and resource. It details the computational method (divergence theorem, material density, infill, shell) and clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like 'estimate_mesh_print_time' and 'estimate_print_cost_from_mesh' which estimate different quantities.

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 does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives or when not to use it. No exclusions or comparisons with sibling tools are given, though the purpose is clear enough to infer usage.

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