measure_parts

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose a genuinely useful behavioral trait — that returned values are raw/native and build-dependent, so units and layout must be interpreted — but it omits read-only nature, error conditions, and any notion of return shape.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler. It is efficient, though arguably so terse that it under-serves the tool rather than being concisely complete.

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 tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 0% parameter coverage, the description is too thin. It never explains the return structure, units, expected failures, or how to interpret the raw values it warns about, leaving significant gaps an agent must guess at.

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 adds nothing about the two parameters. The names (model, part_ids) are reasonably self-evident, but there is no indication of whether model is a path, ID, or handle, or what form part_ids take beyond an integer array.

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 verb ("Return") and a resource ("raw native part-volume command values"), which hints at measuring part volumes, but the phrasing is jargon-heavy and never plainly says "measures the volume of the given parts." It is distinguishable from siblings like list_parts or inspect_model only indirectly, so the purpose is implied rather than explicit.

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 statement of when to use this tool versus alternatives such as list_parts or inspect_model, and no prerequisites or exclusions. The only usage-ish signal is the caveat that values "require interpretation," which hints this is a low-level raw tool but gives no routing guidance.

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