Part bodies and features

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered by structured data. The description adds meaningful scope detail (mm units, which feature attributes are returned, the Unwrap count) but no behavioral traits beyond that, since output_schema is absent and return shape is only described in prose.

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 sentences, no filler, and the summary content is front-loaded before the usage instruction. Every clause contributes either scope or routing 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 present, the description carries the full burden of describing the return payload, and it does so thoroughly — body properties, units, feature tree fields, and feature counts. An agent knows exactly what it will receive before calling.

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 100% and there is a single optional parameter, so the schema already explains that omitting 'document' falls back to the active document. The description adds nothing about the parameter, which is acceptable at this baseline.

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 gives a specific verb (summarizes) and resource (a part document) and enumerates the exact payload: per-body solidity, face/edge/vertex counts, bounding box in mm, the feature tree with suppression state, and Unwrap feature count. It implicitly separates itself from the face-level siblings by positioning itself as an orientation step, though it never names smallest_faces or face_neighbors directly.

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?

It states the usage context clearly: 'Use it to orient yourself in a model before inspecting individual faces,' which routes the agent to this tool as a first pass. It stops short of stating when not to use it or naming the alternative inspection tools explicitly.

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