cross_sections

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

Discloses the non-destructive, analytical nature of the tool and explains return format and parameters. No annotations exist, so description adequately covers behavior.

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?

Concise at a few sentences, front-loads purpose, then return type, then parameter details, then use cases. No redundant information.

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?

Covers all parameters, return format, and use cases. With an output schema present, the description is sufficiently complete for effective tool selection and invocation.

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?

Provides descriptions for all three parameters (axis: X/Y/Z, default Z; num_slices: default 10, min 2; object_name: from show()), fully compensating for the 0% schema description coverage.

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 tool computes cross-sectional areas along an axis and returns a list of position-area pairs. It distinguishes itself from siblings like clearance or shape_compare by specifying its unique function.

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?

Explicitly mentions use cases: detecting internal voids, wall-thickness variation, verifying cross-section profiles. Does not explicitly state when not to use or name alternatives, but context is clear.

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