analyze_geometry

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful behavioral context beyond that: units are world millimetres, thickness is sampled geometry rather than mechanical strength, and the overhang angle is a downward-face threshold from horizontal in 0..90. The side effect of 'save SVG previews' sits a bit uneasily with readOnlyHint but is plausibly a non-project byproduct, not a contradiction.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action, then three short semantic notes with no filler. Every sentence earns its place, though the units/thickness/angle notes could be slightly compressed.

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, and the description does not indicate what the measurement returns (metrics? file paths for the SVGs? summary stats), which an agent would want before calling. Given the complexity and the 0% schema coverage on the inputs, the definition is adequate but leaves a notable return-shape gap.

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 0%, so the description must carry parameter meaning. It does this well for overhang_angle (defines the angle, valid range 0..90, default implied by schema) but says nothing about project_id or revision, including how a null revision resolves. Partial compensation for a 3-param, undocumented schema.

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?

Specific verb (measure) plus the resources measured: geometry, sampled thickness, contact regions, overhang regions, and it notes it saves SVG previews. The scope is clear and no sibling in the list (which are mostly project/settings/slicing controls) overlaps with it. It stops short of explicitly differentiating from siblings, so a 4 rather than 5.

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?

There is no statement of when to run this versus alternatives (e.g., before start_slice or instead of compare_candidates), no prerequisites, and no exclusions. Usage is only implied by the nature of the measurement.

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