check_geometry

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It indicates the tool is read-oriented and returns diagnostics, but it does not mention side effects, failure modes, behavior on invalid BReps, or any operational constraints.

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 with no filler. It is concise and immediately communicates the core action, though it omits important supporting context.

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 annotations, no parameter descriptions, and no usage guidance, the description is too thin for an agent to confidently invoke this tool in the right situation. The output schema helps explain return values, but the missing context around when and how to use it remains a significant gap.

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%, and the description provides no parameter information. The parameters `doc_name` and `object_name` are only given minimal titles in the schema; the description does not explain their roles, defaults, or relationship.

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 ('Validate'), a clear resource ('an object's BRep'), and the outcome ('return structured geometry diagnostics'). This distinguishes it from nearby sibling tools like check_collision or get_bounding_box, though it does not explicitly contrast with inspect_shape or inspect_object.

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?

There is no guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as inspect_shape, check_collision, or measure_distance. The description gives no contextual trigger, exclusion criteria, or recommended workflow.

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