validation.floor_penetration

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 covered. The description adds 'Risk: read; maturity: L3,' which is a small behavioral signal beyond annotations, but it does not explain what the validation checks, what it returns, or any side effects. No contradiction with annotations.

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 short and front-loaded with the command name, but it is under-specified rather than concise. The sentence 'Risk: read; maturity: L3' is compact but adds little value. The description earns a 3 because it is not bloated, but it does not use its brevity to convey 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?

For a validation tool with 9 parameters and an output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not explain what floor penetration means, what inputs are required, what the output contains, or how it relates to other validation tools. The annotations cover safety, but the description fails to provide the functional context an agent needs to select and invoke this tool correctly.

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 only 33%, and the description adds no parameter meaning. The schema names parameters like frameStart, frameEnd, object, floorZ, and limit, but the description does not explain what they mean or how they relate to floor penetration validation. With low schema coverage and zero description compensation, the agent is left guessing at parameter semantics.

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 is essentially a label: 'PartMe Blender Harness command `validation.floor_penetration`.' It names the command but does not state what the tool does, what it validates, or what 'floor penetration' means. It is closer to a tautology than a functional description, and it does not distinguish it from sibling validation tools like blender_validation_foot_drift or blender_validation_motion_discontinuity.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It mentions 'Requirements: Per-request argument checks and session policy still apply,' which is generic harness boilerplate, not usage guidance. An agent cannot infer when floor penetration validation is appropriate or how it differs from other validation tools.

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