measure_symmetry

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

No annotations are provided, and the description does not disclose what the return value is (e.g., a ratio, boolean, or list) or any side effects. It vaguely says 'determine how symmetric' but gives no quantitative details. The threshold parameter is explained only in terms of its definition, not its effect.

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 succinct, with a clear purpose sentence followed by a brief explanation and parameter list. No redundant information. It could potentially integrate the parameter descriptions more naturally, but overall it is efficiently structured.

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?

The description does not explain what the tool returns or how to interpret the result. With no output schema, the agent is left guessing whether the output is a boolean, a numerical value, or a report. This is a significant gap for a measurement tool.

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 does provide brief parameter explanations (object_name, axis, threshold) that add basic meaning beyond names and types. However, it lacks details on defaults, constraints, or format (e.g., axis values given as example only).

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 'Check mesh symmetry across an axis' and 'Analyzes vertex positions to determine how symmetric the mesh is'. It uses a specific verb-resource combination and distinguishes itself from sibling measurement tools like measure_distance and measure_dimensions.

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 for checking symmetry but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives (e.g., measure_alignment). No exclusions or comparisons are given, leaving the agent without decision context among many sibling tools.

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