analyze_hull

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it declares read-only geometry, distinguishes procedural vs imported frame behavior, and warns about depth before saving. It stops short of describing the return payload, but an output schema exists.

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?

Dense but front-loaded, leading with the measurement scope before frame and input-mode details. Every sentence adds operational content; no filler, though the run-on style is less scannable than ideal.

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 an output schema exists, return values need not be explained, and the description covers the coordinate system, input modes, frame caveats, and source override. The one gap is the undocumented 'patch' parameter for a 9-param 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 0% with 9 params, so the description must compensate and largely does: it explains x/stations as integer block coordinates, name/spec/preset/design as input modes, source='backups' semantics, and when to pick body_id. Only 'patch' is left unexplained.

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?

States a specific verb and resource - measuring hull material, floor gaps, and partial-face seams - at a defined scope (z stations). It explicitly distinguishes itself from the seal-checking sibling with 'This is read-only geometry, not a seal test.'

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?

Explains the two main modes: name reads a saved vehicle one body at a time, otherwise build spec/preset/design in the fixed build frame. Also notes source='backups' and warns to verify depth before saving. It doesn't fully route the agent against analyze_vehicle or preview_hull, so no explicit exclusion set.

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