get_stl_info

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not mention if the file must exist, whether permissions are needed, or if the operation is read-only and safe. The description is minimal in conveying behavioral traits beyond the basic action.

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 a single, direct sentence that conveys the essential information without any wasted words. It is appropriately sized for a tool with one parameter and a straightforward purpose.

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?

Given that there is no output schema and the tool is simple with one parameter, the description is somewhat complete but lacks details on the return format (e.g., whether it returns a JSON object with specific fields). The agent may need to infer the structure from the examples listed.

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 coverage is 100% and the parameter description in the schema is 'Path to the STL file to analyze', which is concise but adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides. The tool description does not elaborate on format or constraints, so it meets the baseline for good schema coverage.

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 verb 'Get detailed information' and the resource 'STL file', and specifies concrete examples like bounding box, face count, and dimensions. It effectively distinguishes from sibling tools that perform editing or slicing.

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 implies usage for inspecting an STL file but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it provide any exclusions or prerequisites. It leaves the agent to infer appropriate context.

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