recommend_design_reinforcements

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries full burden. It transparently describes the analysis process and output format (dict with reinforcements list), including specific coordinate locations and tool suggestions. However, it does not mention any side effects, permissions, or potential destructive actions, though it appears to be a read-only analysis.

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 brief introductory sentence, a bulleted list of reinforcement types, and a docstring for parameters. Every sentence adds value, and the most critical information is front-loaded.

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 annotations, no output schema, and only two simple parameters, the description provides complete context: it explains the tool's purpose, input parameters, output format (dict with reinforcements list), and the nature of recommendations. No gaps remain.

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%, so the description must compensate. It does so by explicitly describing both parameters in a docstring format ('file_path: Path to the STL file' and 'min_cross_section_mm2: Minimum safe cross-section area'), adding meaning beyond the schema's minimal type information.

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's function: 'Recommend specific reinforcements for an STL mesh.' It lists five distinct reinforcement types with their benefits, and distinguishes itself from sibling tools like apply_design_reinforcements (which applies) and analyze_structural_risks (which only analyzes).

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 usage after analyzing geometry to find structural risks, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., analyze_structural_risks vs apply_design_reinforcements). No exclusions or context for when not to use are provided.

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