fusion_physical_properties

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

Annotations already mark the tool read-only and non-destructive; the description adds useful behavioral context by listing material metadata and the verification flag, while making the default whole-design behavior explicit. No annotation contradiction is present.

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 compact sentences front-load the core outputs with units, then add body selection and material-reporting scope. Every clause adds information; there is no filler or redundancy.

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 one-optional-parameter read-only query with no output schema, the description covers the target selection, all returned property groups, and units. The safety profile is already carried by annotations, so nothing critical is missing.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description fully compensates for the opaque body parameter: it clarifies the integer/string selector as index or name and documents the null/default behavior as 'whole design'. This is exactly the meaning the schema lacks.

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 identifies the resource (physical properties of a body or whole design) and enumerates the output fields with units, so an agent can tell this apart from spatial measurement or bounding-box tools. It lacks an explicit verb like 'returns' or 'calculates' and does not name sibling tools, so it lands just below the top tier.

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 description implies use when mass, volume, area, density, or material evidence is needed and provides a clear body-selection rule (by index/name or omitted for whole design). It gives no explicit exclusions or alternative tools, such as directing dimension-only queries to fusion_bounding_box or fusion_measure_distance.

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