openvsp.geometry_analysis

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

Annotations only declare readOnly=false, destructive=false, idempotent=false; the description goes further by disclosing the private-snapshot execution model (source is not mutated), the retained artifacts (Results JSON/CSV, script, log, manifest), and that no unit conversion is performed. It still says nothing about where the run directory lands or how failures surface, keeping it below a 5.

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?

Three dense sentences, front-loaded with the operation and mode split before the execution/persistence details. Every sentence adds information, though 'Retains raw Results JSON/CSV, script, log and manifest' is a compressed artifact list that reads slightly as an inventory rather than guidance.

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?

An output schema exists so return values need no explanation, and the description covers snapshot isolation, persistence artifacts, and the units caveat. What it omits is the placement of retained artifacts and the no-scaling implication for downstream interpretation, which leaves a small but real gap for a tool that writes files.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already carries all parameter meaning and a 3 is the baseline. The description's 'explicit source length unit and optional set/mode' largely restates the schema and does not clarify the mode_id/geom_set exclusivity or the projection_direction conditioning.

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 concrete verb (Measure) and resource (a model) and enumerates the two analysis outputs it produces (CompGeom wetted areas/volumes vs Projection silhouette areas). The closing clause 'without running an aerodynamic solver' further separates it from openvsp.run_vspaero, so an agent can pick it without opening a schema.

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 'without running an aerodynamic solver' clause tells the agent this is the measurement path rather than the aero-solve or export path, and the two named modes give clear context. It does not, however, explicitly name alternatives (run_vspaero, export_geometry) or state when not to use it, so it falls short of a 5.

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