get_face_coordinate_system

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the burden of explaining behavior. It discloses that the tool queries, returns a guaranteed outward normal, tangent axes, and origin, and claims improved reliability over body details normals. The 'Query' framing strongly implies a read-only operation, though it does not explicitly state side-effect absence or error behavior.

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 three concise sentences with no filler. It front-loads the core purpose, then gives the return contents, a reliability comparison, and a concrete use case. Every sentence contributes useful information.

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?

With no output schema, the description compensates by naming the returned elements (normal, tangent axes, origin) and the intended usage context. It could be slightly more explicit about the coordinate frame's reference or failure cases, but it is sufficient for an agent to understand what to expect and why to call it.

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 input schema already has 100% coverage with individual descriptions for all five required parameters. The tool description adds no additional parameter-level detail, so it stays at the baseline without needing to compensate for schema gaps.

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 specific action ('Query'), the exact resource ('outward-facing coordinate system for a face on an assembly instance'), and enumerates the returned values (Z-axis, X/Y axes, origin). It also distinguishes itself from the sibling get_body_details by claiming greater reliability for normals.

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 gives an explicit use case: 'Use this to verify face orientations before creating mates.' It also contrasts with body details normals as an alternative. It does not explicitly state when not to use the tool, but the context and comparison provide clear practical guidance.

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