resolve

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

Beyond the annotations, the description discloses the side effect of storing descriptors in session.geometry_refs when a label is provided. It also exposes important geometric edge cases, such as the true centre versus parametric midpoint and the behavior of curved faces, which an agent could not infer from annotations alone.

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 but every sentence adds useful behavioral or output information, especially around center computation and curved-face handling. Its length is justified by the tool's complexity, though a more structured layout (e.g., bullets for output fields) would improve skimmability.

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 explains what the tool does, how to use the selector, what the label parameter does, the full return structure, and the subtle geometry semantics. It is thorough enough for an agent to call the tool correctly even without parameter descriptions in the schema.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description compensates by explaining selector syntax with a concrete example and detailing label's storage side effect. Object_name is less explicit, but the phrase 'named object' and the @cad[object#label] format give enough context for an agent to understand its role.

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 names a specific verb, 'Evaluate a selector expression against a named object', and a concrete resource type, making the tool's function unmistakable. The emphasis on selector expressions and geometry descriptors clearly sets it apart from sibling geometry tools like measure or inspect_part.

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 gives a clear context of use through its example and selector explanation, so an agent can infer when this tool is appropriate. However, it never explicitly states when to use this tool instead of sibling tools like script, execute, or measure, nor does it mention exclusions.

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