check_object

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose the reported facets (size, volume, piece count), which is meaningful since there is no output schema, but it never says whether the call is read-only or mutates the model, what happens on invalid input, or how the object is identified.

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?

Two compact clauses, front-loaded with the key question and then the measurable facets. No filler, though the interrogative framing is slightly informal for a tool spec.

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 one-parameter inspection tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the expected return facets but leaves the input identifier and safety profile undefined. Adequate to guess at intent, not complete enough to call confidently.

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% and the single required 'object' parameter is completely unexplained in both schema and description. It is unclear whether this is an object name, an internal ID, or a file path, which is a real usability gap for a required parameter.

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 identifies the resource (a mesh/object) and enumerates the specific properties it evaluates: closed solid, size, volume, and number of separate pieces. It lacks an explicit action verb ('check' only appears in the tool name) and never distinguishes itself from nearby analysis tools like measure_object or check_print_risks, but the facets listed make the intent recoverable.

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?

No indication of when to call this versus measure_object, check_print_risks, or slice_project, and no prerequisites such as whether the object must already be loaded on a plate. The agent must infer usage entirely from the question phrasing.

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