measure

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

No annotations are provided, but the description details what the tool returns: volume, surface area, topology counts, bounding box, center of mass, inertia tensor, and face-type inventory. It implies a read-only operation with no side effects. Could be more explicit about being non-destructive, but overall sufficient.

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 logically structured: starts with main purpose, lists outputs, then provides usage guidance. It is slightly lengthy but each sentence adds value. Could be trimmed slightly, but still concise and well-organized.

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) and the presence of an output schema, the description covers all relevant aspects: it lists output components, explains usage in context of boolean operations, and mentions the default parameter behavior. It is complete for an AI agent to understand and invoke correctly.

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 coverage is 0%, but the description adds meaning: 'object_name: named object from show() (default: current shape).' This clarifies usage and default behavior beyond the empty schema description.

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 that the tool measures a shape and returns a complete geometric summary, listing specific outputs like volume, surface area, topology, etc. It also distinguishes from sibling tool 'render_view' by recommending measure for unambiguous numbers, and from 'topology' by noting that topology counts confirm boolean operations.

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?

Explicit guidance is provided: 'Prefer measure over render_view for verifying geometry — numbers are unambiguous.' Also explains when to use topology counts: 'fastest confirmation that a boolean operation succeeded: a failed cut leaves face/edge/vertex counts unchanged.' This clearly indicates when to use this tool vs alternatives.

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