analyze_model

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

With no annotations provided, the description correctly discloses the side-effect behavior: it exports to a temporary STL file and cleans it up after parsing. It also explains the internal process of parsing vertex data. It does not mention failure modes or dependencies, but the key side-effect concern is addressed.

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-organized with a brief overview, an Args section, and a Returns section. It is appropriately sized for the tool's complexity, and every sentence adds meaningful information without redundancy.

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 4-parameter tool with no annotations, the description covers the main workflow, inputs, outputs, and side effects. It does not state that at least one of scad_content or scad_file is required, nor does it cover error cases, but the provided detail is otherwise sufficient for effective use.

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 schema has 0% description coverage, so the description takes on the full burden, and it does so well. It explains scad_content vs scad_file mutual exclusivity, variables passed via -D flags, and include_paths via OPENSCADPATH. This goes well beyond the raw schema and is essential for correct invocation.

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 extracts geometric information from an OpenSCAD model and names concrete outputs: bounding box, dimensions, center point, and triangle count. It is distinct enough from siblings, though it does not explicitly contrast itself with related tools like check_openscad or export_model.

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 intended use is clear: call this tool when you need geometric measurements from OpenSCAD content or a file. It does not explicitly say when not to use it or name alternative tools, but the description's purpose statement is direct and informative.

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