inspect_physical_properties

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral-disclosure burden. It usefully explains the return envelope, null handling for uncomputable moments, and coordinate context, but it does not state read-only/no-mutation behavior, permissions, performance implications, or accuracy tradeoffs.

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 front-loaded with the resource and key returned fields, then gives null behavior, return shape, and an example. It is dense but appropriate given the absence of an output schema; the long field enumeration is functional rather than wasteful.

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?

Because there is no output schema and no annotations, the description must cover both return semantics and behavior. It does well on returned fields and null handling, but remains incomplete on sibling differentiation, parameter effects such as accuracy, and read-only or performance behavior.

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 100%, and the schema already documents refs (including default root) and the accuracy enum. The description adds some meaning around occurrence coordinates in the output, but it does not add parameter-specific guidance beyond the schema, so the baseline 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 that this tool retrieves physical/mass properties such as mass, volume, area, density, center of mass, inertia, and material. It is specific about the resource, but it does not distinguish itself from nearby inspection or measurement siblings like inspect_bounding_box or measure_distance.

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 example 'check the volume' implies using this tool for physical-property checks, so usage is somewhat implied. However, it gives no explicit when-to-use guidance versus alternatives such as inspect_bounding_box, measure_distance, or inspect_query, and it lists no exclusions.

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