get_physical_propertiesRetrieve mass, volume, surface area, center of mass, and density for a Fusion 360 body by specifying its name and accuracy level for design analysis.
Get mass, volume, surface area, center of mass, and density of a body
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| accuracy | No | medium | |
| body_name | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate this is a read-only, idempotent, non-destructive operation, so the agent knows it's safe. The description adds value by specifying the exact properties returned, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like performance implications of the 'accuracy' parameter, potential errors for invalid bodies, or if it works on all body types.
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 a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the key information (what properties are retrieved). There's no wasted text, making it easy to parse quickly.
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 read-only tool with annotations covering safety, the description adequately states what it returns. However, without an output schema, it doesn't detail the return format (e.g., units, structure), and the lack of parameter explanations leaves gaps in understanding how to use it effectively.
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 doesn't explain either parameter. It mentions 'body' but not the 'body_name' parameter specifically, and omits the 'accuracy' parameter entirely, failing to compensate for the schema's lack of descriptions.
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 the action ('Get') and the specific properties returned (mass, volume, surface area, center of mass, density) for a body, making the purpose explicit. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from potential measurement-related siblings like 'measure_distance' or 'measure_angle', which slightly limits differentiation.
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?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. For example, it doesn't mention if this is for physical bodies only, how it relates to 'get_object_info' or 'measure_distance', or any prerequisites like needing a body to exist first.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.