Get Physical Properties

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered structurally. The description adds genuinely useful behavioral context by specifying output units (kg, cm³, cm², kg/cm³, cm) — which annotations cannot convey — but says nothing about accuracy semantics or how the accuracy setting affects results.

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?

Two tight sentences with zero filler; the returned-property list is front-loaded and the units sentence directly follows. Efficient, though the second sentence could have been spent on the accuracy parameter rather than pure return formatting.

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 helpfully documents return fields and units, which is the right use of space. However, for a tool exposing a four-level accuracy enum with zero schema documentation, the omission leaves the most consequential calling decision unexplained.

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 carries the full burden for two parameters, yet it never mentions body_name or accuracy. The enum parameter accuracy (low/medium/high/very_high) has meaningful tradeoffs distinctly unexplained — an agent cannot tell whether 'high' costs performance or changes fidelity.

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 specific verb (get) and enumerates the exact resources returned: mass, volume, surface area, center of mass, density of a body. This distinguishes it from measurement siblings like measure_distance or measure_angle, though it never names an alternative explicitly.

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 versus get_object_info, get_bounding_box, or measure_distance, all of which could plausibly supply overlapping physical data. The agent must infer the selection context from the description alone.

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