sw_check_requirements

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful return behavior (pass/fail per check and measured values), but does not explain what requirement checks are evaluated, error behavior, or any side effects beyond reading.

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 that states what the tool does and what it returns, with no wasted text. Brevity is appropriate here, even though the description is incomplete elsewhere.

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 eight optional parameters, 25% schema description coverage, and no output schema, the description is too thin. It leaves the agent without enough detail about what each requirement check means, how max/min parameters are interpreted, or what the returned pass/fail structure contains.

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 only 25%: only doc and fits_build_volume have descriptions, while max_size, min_size, max_mass_kg, min_mass_kg, max_volume_mm3, and min_volume_mm3 are undocumented. The description does not compensate by clarifying those parameters, their units, ordering, or how they relate to the checks.

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: check the model against requirements, and specifies the return shape as pass/fail per check plus measured values. However, 'requirements' remains broad and no sibling tool is named to sharpen the distinction from related checks like sw_measure or sw_print_check.

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?

Provides no explicit when-to-use guidance, prerequisites, or alternatives. An agent can infer that it is for requirement checks, but gets no routing help versus sw_measure, sw_mass_properties, or sw_print_check.

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