optics_moldability_check

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and largely does so: it discloses the underlying computation (per-face draft from outward normal, ray-cast along ±pull, inward chords for wall thickness), how an undercut is reported (negative draft), and that scoring reuses DfM machinery. It omits cost/limit behavior, but for a local read-only analysis this is unusually rich disclosure.

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?

Front-loaded with the one-line purpose, then detail; the dense math is justified because no output schema exists and the return-value enumeration is needed. It is long but each sentence carries technical content rather than filler.

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 analysis tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description supplies the return object, the parameter formats, and the algorithm. Remaining gaps are min_draft_deg semantics and how score/pass thresholds are determined, plus no differentiation from the similarly named moldability siblings.

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 and mostly does: it gives the pull_axis syntax ('+z'/'-x'/… or [x,y,z]), the process enum values ('injection'|'cnc'|'sheet'|'fdm') and that they set the default min wall, and the min_wall_mm override. Only min_draft_deg is left unexplained beyond its default.

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?

States a specific verb+resource: a moldability screen for a part against a single pull axis, explicitly geometric and solver-free, with a formula for draft and a definition of UNDERCUT. It relates itself to dfm_check ('same DfM machinery'), but never distinguishes itself from the near-identical siblings moldability_check and moldability_screen, so an agent cannot tell those apart without opening schemas.

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 'geometric, no solver' framing implies a fast screening use case, but there is no explicit when-to-use / when-not statement and no mention of moldability_check, moldability_screen, or dfm_check as alternatives to route between. Usage is inferable rather than stated.

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