nx_measure_body

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility for disclosing behavioral traits. It only says 'Read', which implies non-destructive behavior, but it does not state whether it modifies anything, what happens if no body exists, or any permissions required. The lack of explicit disclosure of side effects or error conditions is a notable gap.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence that lists the key measurements without any redundant phrasing. Every word contributes to conveying the tool's purpose.

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?

While the description lists what the tool reads, it lacks details about the return format (e.g., whether it returns a single object or an array), units of measurement, or behavior when no body is present. Since there is no output schema to fill these gaps, the description is not fully complete for an agent to anticipate the tool's response.

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 tool has zero parameters, so the schema is empty and there are no parameter semantics to clarify. The description focuses on the output rather than parameters, which is appropriate. With no parameters, a baseline of 4 is given, and the description adds no confusion.

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 uses a specific verb ('Read') with a clear resource ('body') and enumerates the exact outputs (count, bounding box, area, volume, centroid). This distinguishes it from sibling tools that create or modify geometry, making its purpose unambiguous.

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 does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention exclusions. However, the read-only nature and the specific list of measurements imply it is for inspecting body properties, and siblings are mostly creation/modification tools. This implicit guidance is clear but not explicit.

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