measure

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses behavioral traits such as collapsing identical faces and folding sliver faces, and explains how density/material parameters affect output. It does not explicitly state whether the tool is read-only or if it modifies state, but the noun 'measure' implies read-only operation.

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 dense with information but well-structured: overall purpose, output summary, usage advice, then parameter details. Every sentence adds value, though it could be slightly more streamlined given the length.

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?

The description is comprehensive for the tool's complexity and context. It explains the full output (though output schema exists), parameter behavior, usage in geometry verification and boolean checks, and special case handling (collapsed faces, sliver faces). No gaps are apparent.

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 parameter schema has 0% description coverage, so the description compensates fully. It explains object_name defaults to current shape, lists material presets (steel, stainless, etc.), states units (g/cm³, mm³, g·mm²), and describes the effects of density/material on mass and inertia.

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, bounding box, centroid, inertia tensor, and face-type inventory. It also explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling tool render_view for verifying geometry.

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 provides clear guidance on when to use this tool: prefer it over render_view for unambiguous geometry verification and use topology to quickly confirm boolean operations. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or compare with 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.