get_face_coordinate_system

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries full burden. It only describes output but does not disclose behavioral traits such as read-only nature, permission requirements, or computational cost. The description is missing behavioral details beyond what the output implies.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with purpose, followed by output, reliability, and usage. No wasted words, highly efficient.

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?

Given the lack of output schema, the description adequately explains return values. With 5 well-described parameters and no enums or nested objects, the description covers purpose, usage, and outputs. Minor gap in behavioral transparency, but overall complete for a query tool.

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 coverage is 100% with all parameters already described. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the parameter names and schemas, so baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 clearly states the tool queries the true outward-facing coordinate system for a face, specifies return values (normal, tangent axes, origin), and distinguishes itself from body details normals by claiming higher reliability.

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?

Explicit usage context is provided: 'Use this to verify face orientations before creating mates.' It also implies an alternative (body details normals) by stating 'More reliable than body details normals', though no explicit exclusions or when-not-to-use guidance is given.

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