analyze_stl

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, and it delivers: it discloses the input format (ASCII or binary), the full set of computations performed, the watertight/closed-manifold check, and the advisory output (cell size + snappyHexMesh advice). The only untold behaviors are error handling for malformed files and performance on large STLs, which are minor for a local analysis tool.

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 with zero filler. The output list is densely packed, and the placement is smart — the advisory output and the workflow guidance ('Use before snappyHexMesh') are deferred to the second sentence. Every clause earns its place.

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 single-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description gives a nearly complete picture of what the agent gets back and what it needs as input. The only gap is the return format (how results are structured), which matters slightly given the absence of an output schema, but it's a modest omission at this complexity level.

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 0% — the schema labels the sole parameter only as 'Path' with no description, so the description must compensate. It partially does: 'Analyze an STL surface (ASCII or binary)' implies path points to an STL file. However, it never explicitly states that the 'path' parameter is the file path to the STL that gets analyzed; the connection is inferred rather than stated.

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 names a specific verb ('Analyze') and resource ('STL surface') and enumerates concrete outputs: triangle count, bounding box, surface area, enclosed volume, watertight check, unpaired edges, and mesh advice. It clearly distinguishes itself from the sibling set, which are all OpenFOAM solver/mesh tools (analyze_residuals, generate_blockmesh, mesh_quality_report, etc.) — this is the only STL-analysis tool among them.

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?

'Use before snappyHexMesh' gives explicit placement in the workflow, and 'No OpenFOAM needed' sets an important precondition. There are no truly overlapping siblings performing STL analysis, so explicit alternative-routing isn't necessary, but the description could be stronger about when NOT to use it (e.g., for non-STL or use with mesh_quality_report vs. pre-mesh checks).

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