fusion_physical_properties

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint and openWorldHint. The description adds that the body can be specified by index or name, but does not elaborate on behavioral aspects such as permissions, error conditions, or the exact output format (it lists properties but not their structure). Minimal added value beyond annotations.

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?

Single sentence that efficiently lists all returned properties and the parameter behavior. No unnecessary words, front-loaded with the core 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?

No output schema exists, but the description lists the returned physical properties sufficiently. However, it does not specify the exact format of center of mass (vector or point) or mention units beyond mm³, g, etc. Still, it is fairly complete for a property retrieval tool.

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 description fully clarifies the single parameter 'body': integer for index, string for name, null for whole design. Since schema description coverage is 0%, this explanation is essential and perfectly fills that gap.

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 it retrieves physical properties (mass, volume, area, density, center of mass) for a specific body or the whole design. It distinguishes from other measurement tools like fusion_bounding_box or fusion_measure_distance, but does not explicitly compare to alternatives.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as fusion_bounding_box or fusion_interference. The description implies its use for physical properties but lacks explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use advice.

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