get_model_info

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose the return payload in detail (bounding box ordering [xmin,ymin,zmin,xmax,ymax,zmax], volume in mm^3, surface area in mm^2, centroid, angles in degrees), which is genuinely useful given there is no output schema. However it never states prerequisites (does a part need to be open via open_part?) or behavior when no work part exists, which are real gaps for an unannotated tool.

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?

Two compact sentences that front-load the core action and then pack units and formats efficiently. The parenthetical unit notations are dense but each earns its place by preventing unit ambiguity; nothing is filler.

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?

For a simple read-only summary tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description covers the return shape thoroughly enough to call and interpret the result. The remaining gap is environmental context — whether the work part must already be open — which is a minor omission rather than a blocking one.

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?

Only one optional boolean parameter, and the schema already documents it at 100% coverage ('Include the feature list.'). The description's mention of 'feature list' as part of the summary implicitly confirms what the flag toggles, but adds no syntax or default behavior beyond the schema. Baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb ('Summarise') and resource ('the work part') and enumerates exactly what the summary contains: feature list, bodies, bounding box, volume, surface area, centroid. An agent can distinguish this from siblings like list_features or list_faces because it clearly returns an aggregate overview. It stops short of naming any sibling, so no explicit differentiation is made.

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?

There is no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and no named alternative. Usage is only inferable from the phrase 'Summarise the work part', leaving the agent to guess whether this is the right call versus list_features or list_faces for a narrower question.

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