Check Airtight Path

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, and the description reinforces this with 'Inspection only: measures, returns no handle, mutates nothing.' It adds meaningful behavioral detail beyond the annotations: the cap-solids sealing method, the negative-space void analysis, the bottleneck threshold behavior, and the leak-detection semantics. It doesn't describe side effects (there are none) or failure modes, but for a read-only inspection tool this is strong coverage.

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 dense but well-organized: a one-sentence purpose, a contrast with the sibling, a short inspection-only note, then parameter explanations and a return-value list. It earns its length because every section adds information an agent needs. Slightly long, but the structure (purpose → params → returns) makes it scannable.

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 5-parameter tool with no output schema, the description is complete: it documents all parameters, explains the return dict fields with units, and covers the behavioral semantics (capping, void analysis, bottleneck threshold). An agent has everything needed to invoke it correctly and interpret the result.

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 carries the full burden, and it delivers. It explains what 'handle' is, what 'inlet'/'outlet' mean (face reference naming each port OPENING, with accepted forms: f_* tag, 'FaceN', int index, or role/name from annotate_face), what min_aperture_mm2 does, and what pad_mm defaults to. This is far beyond what the bare schema provides.

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 states a specific verb ('functional check'), a precise resource ('enclosed-flow part'), and the exact question it answers: is there a single connected void joining inlet to outlet, bounded by solid everywhere else. It also explicitly contrasts itself with check_shape, which is a sibling in the tool list, so an agent can distinguish it without opening the schema.

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 explicitly says when to use this tool ('catches what check_shape cannot — a watertight solid can still have a blocked flow path or a hidden leak') and names the alternative. It also states the inspection-only nature and the required port references, giving clear context for when this tool is appropriate.

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