cad_inspect_stl

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does disclose the full set of computed metrics, and the verb 'Inspects' implies a non-destructive read operation. However, it does not state what happens for non-watertight or malformed files (whether volume and filament estimates degrade or error) nor explicitly confirm the tool has no side effects on the file.

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?

A single ~25-word sentence that front-loads the verb and resource and packs the complete metric list with zero filler. Every element earns its place; nothing is redundant or missing.

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?

With no output schema, the description must cover return values, and it does — all five computed metrics are enumerated, including material-specific filament consumption. The remaining gaps are unit specification for dimensions/volume and the result format of the watertightness check (boolean vs. issue list), which an agent would need for downstream interpretation.

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% — 'Path to the .stl file' fully documents the single parameter. The description adds only marginal context by clarifying it is a 3D mesh and listing what will be computed from that path, so the high-coverage baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 pairs a specific verb ('Inspects') with a specific resource ('3D STL mesh file') and enumerates the exact analysis outputs: watertight manifoldness, triangle count, bounding box dimensions, volume, and filament consumption for PLA/PETG/ABS. This unambiguously distinguishes it from its siblings, which are all generation, calibration, or system-check tools.

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 gives no explicit when/when-not guidance and names no alternative tools. Usage is only implied through the purpose statement — an agent can infer this tool is for validating/analyzing STL files before printing or generation — but the description never states that context or contrasts itself with the generate siblings.

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