measure

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

The description discloses behavioral traits beyond the readOnlyHint annotation: it details the output structure, mentions that identical faces are collapsed and non-analytic sliver faces are folded into one summary line, and explains that mass and inertia are only computed when density or material is provided. No contradictions with annotations.

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 well-structured, starting with the main output summary, then usage guidance, then parameter details. It is slightly lengthy but every sentence adds value. Could be trimmed slightly but remains effective.

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 the tool's complexity (many output fields), the description covers all return values, edge cases (face collapsing), and conditional behaviors (mass/inertia only with density/material). An output schema exists and likely duplicates some details, but the description is still comprehensive.

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?

The description provides full meaning for all three parameters (object_name, density, material) beyond the enum-free schema. It explains defaults and lists material presets. With 0% schema description coverage, the description compensates completely.

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's purpose: to measure a shape and return a complete geometric summary including volume, surface area, topology, bounding box, center of mass, inertia tensor, and face-type inventory. It distinguishes itself from the sibling tool render_view by noting that numbers are unambiguous for geometry verification.

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 explicitly advises preferring measure over render_view for verifying geometry and suggests using topology to check boolean operation success. It also explains when to provide density or material to get mass and inertia. However, it does not explicitly exclude other sibling tools like clearance or cross_sections.

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