get_mass_properties

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

With no annotations, the description carries the disclosure burden. It usefully reveals that values come as [min, mean, max] uncertainty triples, that mass is zero without a material, and that volume/centroid are always meaningful. It stops short of covering units, coordinate frames, 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?

Three compact sentences with no wasted words. The main result and scope are front-loaded, and the additional caveats are concise and valuable.

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 output schema and no annotations, the description covers the essential return content and key caveats well enough for an agent to invoke the tool and interpret results. It omits minor details like units and exact response shape, but these are not critical blockers.

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 schema already documents partId and elementId, and the description mostly reinforces partId's optional filtering role. documentId and workspaceId are not described in the schema, but their purpose is reasonably inferable from the Part Studio context. This partial compensation earns a middle score.

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?

States a specific resource (Part Studio bodies) and explicitly lists the returned quantities (volume, mass, center of mass, principal inertia, bbox). It also clarifies scope variation via partId, making it easy to distinguish from geometry/measurement siblings.

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?

Clearly implies when to use the tool: when mass properties are needed for all bodies or a specific part. It gives good contextual guidance about supplying partId, but it does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion conditions.

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